Arizona republican., 1917-01-05
[ANEY RULES FOR SHERIFF

Declaring that the appointment of court attendants was within his legal rights, Sheriff Henry Wilky stated yes terday that he did not mean to allow the judges the privilege of appointing baliffs
 Why, there is no such thing as q bailiff in the statutes" said Wilky. Tt is up to the sheriff to wait on the court, and if he cannot be present he must send his deputies. l should pre- fer that this affair be settled by mu- tual agreement, but if it cannot be it will have to be settled by a lawsuit"
 That Wilky has no intention of leav- iAs the bailiff appointments to the county board of supervisors which rec usnl3ed Jim Graham and Charlie Cox as hold over appointees of Judge Stan ford 2nd Hon. Stewart and John Os- born. who were appointed by the board upon the recommendation of Judge Lyman was evident. Wilky even ad- mitted that he had at least one man Tn View for court attendant and that he planned in the meantime to use his deputies as court bailiffs.
 The sheriff yesterday asked for d written opinion from County Attorney l.. NJ. Laney. While MT Laney's opin- ion might be interpreted to give the en- tire right to the sheriff there is clause that might prevent him from carrying out his plans. It reads The appoint mentS of the deputies over and above an under sheriff and five deputies. which are specifically provided by law. must be made of course by and with the consent of the board of supervi- sors.
 sIr Laney says in part:
 Tt seems that the regular way for the county Co furnish attendants to the court Is through the sheriff and his ap- pointment of deputies. These appoint ments of deputies over and above an under sheriff and five deputies, which are specifically provided by law, must be made, of course, by and with the consent of the board of supervisors. It further seems that there would be no call or necessity for the court to appoint attendants unless the sheriff should have failed to furnish such at tendants
 The question arises as to whether it IS not one of the inherent powers of the superior court to appoint it's own attendants. Clearly this is true if the necessity arises. or. in other words, if the sheriff has failed to furnish such attendants. l do not believe il 10 be the law. however. that the court. in til' tNtltlSt or us inherent powers may appoint its own attendants when sufficient method of supplying such at tendants is prescribed by law It would hardly be contended that the court, in the exercise of its inherent powers. could appoint its own clerk The law points out method of choosing Il clerk of the court and the court must ac- ccpt the services of such clerk. Like wise it would seem that SD long as the sheriff furnishes or Is in readiness Co furnish deputy sheriff attendants. the court should accept the services of such attendants.
 Accordingly. without attempting to advise the sheriff what his policy should be. but merely attempting to interpret the law as l find il. I am obliged 10 advise that il is the right and duty of the sheriff of Maricopa county to furnish such attendants to the Superior court of the county as may be needed.
 'lf this matter is not solved by mu- tual agreement among parties inter ested, it could be settled by q friendly lawsuit to be tried by some judge called Tn from another county"