The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1916-12-06
APPEAL
FROM ORDER
DENYING AID
FOR WIDOWS
Attorney Jessup Feels I'm
fairness of Patrolmens'
Compensation Ruling; He
Seeks to Change Law.

Wilfred Jessup, attorney for the
widows of two Richmond police off,
GERS, murdered last July while In the
performance of their duties, George
Little and Elmer Stephenson, an
nounced today that an appeal would
be filed in Wayne circuit court of the
decision just made by the Indiana
State Industrial Board that police
officers do not come under the protec-
ton of the workmen's compensation
act and, consequently, the widows Of
the two murdered Richmond officers
are not entitled to receive compensa-
tion from the City of Richmond under
the terms of this act.
Will Appeal to Court
II had rather anticipated ruling
of this nature on the part of the In
dustrial Board" Mr.. Jessup said to-
day. However, l do not think the
boards decision in this matter should
be final and will take an appeal to
the circuit court
Mr.. Jessup further stated that an
effort would be made to have the 1917
legislature amend the workmen's COM
pensation act so as to provide specifi-
cally that police officers are employees
of the municipalities they serve.
Great regret was expressed by Off
cials at city hall over the ruling of the
Industrial board as the administration
was desirous of providing compensa-
ton for Mrs. Little and Mrs. Stephen
son, each of whom has only modest
income, the latter being the mother of
two small children.
Robbins Favors Appeal
II would like to see this case ap-
pealed to the courts" Mayor Robbins
said. IF much expense Is involved by
such an action would willingly con-
tribute to a fund to finance the court
cost"
City Attorney Bond said that he
would cooperate in every way pos
sible to provide relief for the widows
of the two officers through an amend
ment to the compensation law. He
said he doubted if the courts would
reverse the boards ruling as he is
satisfied that the boards decision is
strict Interpretation of the law.
To OFFICER OF State
In it's ruling the State Industrial
Commission points out that the at
torney for Mrs. Little conceded In his
brief that I'm Indiana patrolman is a
state rather than municipal officer,
and also that patrolman is neither
the agent nor the servant of the
municipality"
Commenting on this section of the
plaintiffs brief the board remarks in
cedes that patrolman, under the met
ropolitan police act, is an officer of
the state and is not an agent or SER
want of the city, it seems to the In
dustrial board that the plaintiff makes
concession which is fatal to an
award of compensation in this con-
troversy."
Held as Public Officers
The board then calls attention to
the fact the supreme and appellate
courts of the state have repeatedly
held that town and city marshals and
policemen are public officers and not
the agents or servants of the COM
munities they serve.
uo UOdlu u pOllllS OuI ludt Ill uldly
states the workmen's compensation
acts expressly provide that policemen
shall be considered employees of the
municipalities they serve, but that no
such provision is contained in the In
diana law. In conclusion the decision
reads.
eft is probably true that the Indiana
act should apply to them (policemen),
but that is a matter for the legisla-
ture. The industrial board is purely
an administrative body charged with
the administration of the act as it was
written by the legislature. 1t is with
out power to extend the provisions
of the act by construction