Hopkinsville Kentuckian., 1908-04-23
Sheriff Smiths Attorneys
Claim Case is Not
Settled.
AN APPEAL is TAKEN.
In Meantime it is Not Known
Just What the Legal
Status Is.

On Monday evening Messrs.
Duffy & Hanbery, representing
Sheriff David B. Smith, had the
Circuit Clerk to issue an order di-
rected to Judge Prowse and Mr..
Renshaw for stay of proceedings.
The papers were soon served after
O'Clock by Coron Allensworth
This action is in the nature of an
appeal from the original order as is
sued by Judge Prowse and the pc
tition supporting this appeal will
raj rev questions in the case.
These attorneys also contend that as
Judge Barker's decision was not re-
ceived and entered upon the record
within the prescribed twenty days
from the day on which Judge Cook
granted the injunction, which was
on March 2, that the opinion loses
its force dissolving the injunction
which has been granted.
Mr.. Renshaw's attorneys, Trlmble
& Bell, claim that the decision is a
virtual settlement of all the law
points.
The Frankfort Journal says:
In reversing the Circuit Judge
and in some measure reversing the
Court of Appeals, as shown in the
case of Schuft VS.. Pflauz, SO KY, 81,
Judge Barker calls attention to the
change made in the revenue law of
1906, which required that the new
bond should be given on or before
the fr.t day of March of each
year instead, as the old law provid-
ed, on or before the first Monday in
January of each year. 1t was ad-
mitted that the bond was not fiji, d
and accepted by the County Judq e
on or before the first day of March,
1908, and the Judge points out that
the law gives the County Judge the
opinion of removing the Sheriff or
suspending him from office for such
dereliction, and as the County Judge
exercised the opinion of removing
him, the Judge decides he was clear
ly within his rights, and therefore
awards the Office to Renshaw.
Judge Barker draws the following
difference between the decision in
the case of Schuf VS.. Pfanz, above
referred to. and the present case as
follows:
Section 4557 of the Kentucky
Statues provides that it shall be the
duty of the county court to cause the
sheriff annually to renew his bonds
and upon his failure to do so, the
court is required either to suspend
him from acting until he does give
bond, or may vacate his Office. So fal
as this phase of the case is concern
ed, am of opinion that it concluded
by the reasoning in Schuff VS.. Pfani
SO Ky. 81. That case is similar il
principle in all respects to the cas'
at bar, except that after the sheriff
failed to give bond at the prope
time the county judge accepted hi
bond and then entered an order va
eating the office and appointing
successor. The court then goes o.
to show that the present case differ
in that the county judge Gid rot &C
cept the bond of Smith, but OH tn
other hand made an order vacatinI
his office because of his failure t
make the bond within the time pro
yided by law, and appointing his sue
cessor. The court holds that if tn
county court of Jefferson county
had taken the same action in tn
case of Schuff VS.. PAanz, the sam
decision as in the present case woul
have been rendered.
The court overruled the confer
! tion of Smith that it was the duty Q
the county judge to first notify hir
of his failure to execute the require
bond within the specified time, holC
ing that the onus was on the sheri
to give the bond rather than of tn
county Judge 70 give him notice c
III. foiI.r~o