Norwich bulletin., 1914-05-22
ADVISES SUPERIOR COURT
 RULING IN SHELBY CASE But Atty. Gen. Light Docs Not Think
 Sheriff is "EmpIoye."

Attorney General John H. Light has no desire to interpret the scope of the workmen's compensation law, employ of the state, or any state of fcial coming under it's provisions. In an opinion delivered to Comptroller Daniel P. Dunn he makes this clear
 The case in question is the claim of the widow of Preston B. Sibley, sheriff of Windham- county. The at- torney general advises Comptroller Dunn to refuse to allow the claim, in order that the case may be. taken to the superior court He advances sew eral reasons, however, to support his personal belief that the sheriff was not included in the provisions of the law. The opinion is as follows:
 Dear Sir: VI have your recent favor in which you say:
 q am in receipt of letter from the attorney for the dependent of the late sheriff of Windham county, deceased. asking for an agreement under the workmen's compensation act for com pensation for damages resulting from the death of said sheriff.
 'Ts a county sheriff a person who has entered into or works under a contract of service with the state and therefore entitled to compensation from the state?"
 am of the opinion that you should decline to recognize the claim for compensation growing out of the accidental death of the late Sheriff Preston B. Sibley by entering into voluntary agreement in regard to compensation.
 | do not care to prejudge the valid ity of Mrs. Sibley's claim for com pensation. Therefore, what I have to say must serve only to justify your refusal to enter into the statutory agreement leaving the question es to whether she may be entitled to com pensation to be determined in due course by the compensation commis sioner of the second district, and, if his decision shall not prove satisfac . tory to either of the parties inter ested. an appeal may be taken to the superior court for Windham county.
 It is doubtful to say the least whether sher1ff is workman" or an 'employe," in the sense in which those terms are used in the work mems compensation act
 It has been held that an "employe" refers to one whose employment Is merely contracted for, and differs from an officer, whose function ap- pertains to the administration of gov ernment. (Moll V. Sbisa 51 La. Ann. 290) This is in keeping with the definition given in the statute. name " EmplOye snail mean any person who has entered into or works under any contract of service or apprentice. ship with an employer.
 Every sheriff is public officer. and a public office Is never conferred by contract. It finds its source and limi- tations in some act or expression of the governmental power. (fIali V Wisconsin, 103 U. S. 5.)
 Where an individual has been ap- pointed or elected in a manner pre- scrfbed by law, has a designation or title given him by law. and exercises functions concerning the public as- signed to him by law, he must be re- garded as a public officer" (Bradford V. Justicec B Ga. 33e.)
 And it may be claimed also. that sheriff is a county official -in the meaning of the compensation act. The ] fact that his salary is paid by the state is not conclusive. He is chos- en by the county, and, if a public officer, may be said to be employed his employment comes from tn. county, and not from the state. It is desirable to have the court pass on the questions involved in the pend. 1 ing claim. and to define the scope oi i the workmen's compensation act | Very truly yours.
 : JNO. IT. LIGHT,
 A8kefneY- General.