The commercial. (Union City, Tenn.) 190?-193?, 1915-02-26
COUNTY COURT ACTION IN
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
Circuit Court Can't Review Find
ings of County Court.

That the Circuit Court cannot review
the findings OF the County Court on
matters relative to the latter's opera
ton and that a magistrate or any other
| official cannot accept compensative work
from the political body under which he
is holding office were the sum and sub
stance of two DEGREES handed down by
the Court of Civil Appeals Saturday
that will be of general interest in this
State
In the case of T. B. Crenshaw, county
court clerk, VS.. the county of Shelby,
Judge F. P Hall delivered the opinion,
ratifying the action of the Memphis
circuit Judge who found that his court
had no right to modify or change the
action of the County Court in matters
relative to the latter's operation. Cren-
shaw as county court clerk had as usual
made out~the tax books for the year and
presented the County Court with a bill
of $4,000 as compensation therefor.
The County Court passed on the bill
and allowed it. but at subsequent ses-
sion appointed special committee to
investigate the matter further. This
committee ruled that $4,000 was too
much compensation for the work and
recommended that only 81, $50 be al
lowed. The County Court then rescind-
ed its former action and ratified the re-
port of the special committee, and Clerk
Crenshaw was offered 81 ,250-only half
of what he had formerly received for
the work. Not satisfied with this he
entered suit in Circuit Court to recover
the remaining 81, $50 on his bill. The
circuit judge in his opinion on the
question stated that while he did not
think 50, 500 was an exorbitant charge
for the making out of Shelby County s
tax books, he was unable to modify or
change the action of the County Court,
because the Circuit Court did not have
that jurisdiction. CrenshaW then ap-
pealed the case to the Appellate Court,
and that tribunal ratified the action OF
the circuit judge in deciding that he
could not review the findings of the
County Court.
Another decision of much interest in
Tennessee was that rendered by Judge
j. Y. Hughes in the case of the State
ex rel. w. H. Alternately VS.. w. H.
Robertson, coming up from the Circuit
Court OF Lauderdale County. Robert
son was magistrate, member of the
County Court, and had accepted con-
tract to do highway repairing, bridge
building, etc. The letting of the work
was left to the County Court or its
officials. Robertson received compen-
sation for the work. Alternately, cit
izen of Lauderdale County, upon the
relation of the State, entered suit against
Robertson for the purpose of having
him ousted from the job of magistrate,
because he had broken that portion of
the State law which specifies that no
magistrate shall accept work and pay
therefor to be given by the County
Court or any of its officers. Judge S.
J. Everett sitting on the bench in Lau-
derdale, ruled that Robertson had by
his act broken that law and ought to
be ousted from his job as magistrate.
Robertson appealed his case, his main
contention being that the suit against
him had been brought through spirit
of malice and hatred; but the Appel
late Court took no cognizance of this
phase of the matter. They sustained
Judge Everett in his opinion and Magis-
trate Robertson is ousted from his office.
Thus the State law on this question,
which by the way is one of the most
salutary statutes in Tennessee, is vital
lied by the high courts opinion.