The Sisseton weekly standard. (Sisseton, Roberts County, S.D.) 1892-1929, 1912-05-10
An Open Letter

tal day wages for his time: also |
that ii is usually the smaller eases
rather than the felony cases that
take up the time in justice court.
In felony eases the defendant al
most always valves examination
in the little eases the defendant
usually fights. In this connec-
tlon | call attention to the last
mlSdemeanor ease, than OF State
vs.. DR.. t'r'rsch. tried March 10Th
and 10th OF this year, which ease
occupied the time of the court
the greater part Of two days. EN-
cept IN cases like that one. |
never charge more than $500 for
attendance in justice court.
Again, the unnamed writer in
the newspaper with the odious
name has taken particular pains
to hunt up the only sheriff's bill
/ ever presented, which on it's face
looks unreasonable that i'm the case
OF State VS. Carl Ncdin and two
others at White Rock. These war
rants We're handed me for service
on Novmber l3, 1908, and | inn
medAately set out to serve them.
AT that time a.severe blizzard was
on and the trains were blocked
and | did not reach White Rock
until November 10Th. I'm White
Rock | searched four places
where liquors We're supposed to
be illegally sold, seized liquors
arrested three men and brought
them back to Sisseton. My bill,
$99.l5, included my own fees for
travel and services, my assistant
or deputy for travel and services,
my fees for maxim searches and
issuing all papers, and the expense
OF transporting three prisoners
from White Rock to Ssiseton by
way of Ortonville and Milbank,
and the expense of bringing Ii
quor siezed | was engaged five
days and three nights continuously
in this service. After paying all
the expenses and disbursements
and settling with my assistant or
deputy, there remained of this
sum less than $4,000 as my com
pensation for five days and three
nights services. I might mention
that, as a result Of this trip,
Roberts county received fines in
The sum Of $15OiO 1t is safe to
say that neither the unnamed wri-
ter nor the editor of the paper
it'll the odious name ever did or
ever will render a like ervicc to
Roberts county for less money.
Again, this unnamed writer re-
fers to the shcriff's fees i'm the
Bailly case as an illustration of
the fees under the old and new
law, On this trip the actual
mileage travelled was 5,416 miles.
Under the old law, at 10 cents
per mile, this. amounts to %54l go
under the new law, so condemned
by the paper with the odious
J name, the fee of the sheriff
| would have been for the first II
miles and return $500; for the
balance of this trip, 1886 miles
at Z cents per mile, S37702, to-
tai $383.O2, on net saving to
the county by the new law Of
$15S.5S. | might also mention
the case of State VS.. Mike Mead
where | recently had occasion tc
go to Montana after Mike Mead
In this case the travel was ap
proximatcly 1,s00 miles. Unde7
the new law the sheriff's fee!
would amount to $4,000, under
the old law to $4,000, making
a saving by he new law Of $50
1G. With reference 10 my fees il
the ba!lly case, the unnamed
writer suggests a question a
to whctho" I was entitled to thes
fees. liz. however, forgot to ex
plain to the voters that this bill
for fees in the Bailly case was re
| ferred to the attorney general o
this state. and the attorney gen
eral held the bill correct. anC
the bill was paid by the count.
commissioners on the opinion o
the attorney general.
! The plain fact Of the matte
is that, under the old law. tn
J sheriff. on a long trip of on
thousand miles or more. receive,
al excessive fee, while on a shor