The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1908-03-20
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
VIOLATE STATE LAWS
EVERY TIME THEY ALLOW CLAIM FOR DAYS BOARD
FOR PRISONERS IN COUNTY JAIL WHEN THREE
MEALS HAVE NOT BEEN EATEN, THE LAWS RUL-
INGS ARE NOT OBEYED.

later is transferred TO the county jail.
the sheriff credits him with a full day.
The county again pays for the break
fast, which in reality was not eaten.
Thus the city and county both pay for
the same meal. the city contributing
20 cents and the county Il 1-3 cents.
but the prisoner has the privilege OF
eating but one meal
In an opinion prepared by the attor-
ney OF Marion county. John c. Ruckel-
shaus, and presented to the board of
commissioners. it is held the sheriff is
entitled to pay for the meals actually
served only. If a prisoner eat dinner
and supper the sheriff would be enti-
tied to 26 2-i cents, if he ate but one
meal. 13 1-3 cents is all the sheriff
should be paid according to Ruckel-
shaus.
Plan Followed Here.
1t is customary in this county, when
a prisoner is taken TO the county Jail
after supper in the evening and re-
leased the next morning before break
fast even, for the sheriff to put in Il
bill for 80 cents on the ground the law
recognizes no fraction of a day and
consequently he is entitled to pay for
two full days. If the prisoner remain
and eat three meals the second day
but be released before breakfast of
the third day, the sheriff's bill calls
for three full days in just the same
way as applies to two days. Ruckel-
shaus contends that this is violation
Of the law and maintains the sheriff
is entitled to pay only for meals actu
ally served.
Laws Ruling.
The point of law involved has been
called to the attention of the higher
courts a number of times. In the case
Of Presley, sheriff, VS.. the Board of
County Commissioners of Marion
county, the claim was advanced that
the law recognized no fraction of a
day. The court held against the sher,
iff. In giving the opening, the court
held 1t is true the law does not recog-
nize fraction of a day. but is held al
SO that this fact is fiction of law in
dulged in for convenience and to pro-
mote the ends of justice but not allow
ed when it will promote an injustice
or wrong.
In submitting the opinion and in
answer to argument, the Judge who
prepared the opinion states:
IF the sum specified is a fair com
pensation for the food consumed by
the prisoner in one day, it would be
more than a just compensation for
the quantity consumed by him in one
third or two thirds of a day, and in
justice ought not to be paid for a full
days board for one meal or for one
third of days board If an employer
should agree to pay his employe 81
per day for his work, no one would
think the latter entitled to 81 for a
half days work. Nor. should one
agree to board another for ST. per dav.
or IS per week, would it be thought
that the landlord could charge the
boarder dollar for a half days board,
or S6 for less than a weeks board
1t is said by the appellants coun.
sci that the law allows jurors 81 per
day for their services; that If a Juror
IS called to try case, though it takes
but half an hour and he is then dis
charged he is allowed 81 for a full day.
lhls is true, and here the rule that
the law will not regard the fraction
or the day, applies, for it is obvious
the time in this case is referred 10 as
a unit; that the time of the Juror is
to be paid for and the word 'dav' is
used to designate the indivisible unit
or time to be so paid for"
Meredith Cites Case.
In support of the contention of him
sell ana other county sheriffs, Sheriff
Meredith called attention to the decis-
ion OF the Appellate court in the case
or City of Indianapolis VS.. Parker In
this case the city sought TO recover
from Parker sheriff, money paid nv
1t to him for the board of prisoners al
lowed Tor time they were not actually
IN MS care and being boarded bv him.
Inc court held for Parker, but on the
ground that it had not been alleged
III the city S complaint that the charg-
es were excessive. The city failed 10
allege the damages allowed were in
excess and because of this negligence
the court held there was no cause for
1urther action and refused the petition
Tor a new trial The court did NOT
consider the case as to a question Of
right but only in regard TO the amourr
OF damages the city claimed was due
1t from the sheriff as endorsement
1t haS been held by legal authorities
that the sheriffs can not refer TO this
Judgement as support TO their couten-
ton, as the point of chare,s .p1 ,,-,