Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1918-06-07

is re-enacted as Sec. 40, Chap. lsf'
r. s. 1916, which we have eeeh u'"-
GUESSING and in which case the Guar ke
made against Sheriff Moulton IN the
address was identical with the charge
made in this case against SneriH
White, except in the Moulton case
, there was an allegation or wli1ui ana
corrupt refusal and neglect ana theh
there is an allegation OF unfaithful
and inefficient performance as ! have
stated in that case is said, "All causes
are assigned clearly and fully state
a case of non-f easance which is de-
fined as an omission Of performance
and required duty at all, or total
neglect of duty: the omission OF
an act which a person ought to do.
I I'm fact the title of Chapter Al, p.
L. 1905, is An Act providing penal
ties for non -feasance Of duties by
sheriffs, ETC. under the statute cited,
/ (Which is Sec SO. Chap. 20, r. S.
1903, as amended by Chap. Al. P. L.
1905, and whichsis now Sec. 40, Chap.
127, r. S. 1850 There can be no
question that non feasance especially
relates to and affects the admins
tration of the office of sheriff and is
! of a substantial nature directly at
fecting the rights and interests of
the public and as such non -feasance
is punishable by fine or imprison-
ment which manifestly constitutes an
unfitness to hold office.
The new amendment under which
we are acting does not require that
a sheriff in order to be removed must
be guilty of non -feasance described
in Sec. 40, that is. be guilty of wilful
or corrupt refusal or neglect to per-
form his duties but only requires that
he shall be proven to be inefficient
and unfathful in the performance Of
his duties, but nevertheless the proof
of such unfaithfulness and inefficiel-
cy constitutes proof of a non -feasance
in the definition in Moulton V. Scully.
The offense which gives ground for
removal is a continuing and habitual
cheney just as the Court said in Moul-
ton V. Scully in that case wilful or
corrupt refusal to perform duties are
a continuing and habitual offense
And this being as | interpret the law
continuing and habtual non-feasance
have used the we'll known and long
established and recognized continuendo
form of setting out the time of com
hitting the offense.
The term law as I understand /. in
ciudes both statutory and common law,
that is, case law. and we find in Baker
Y. johnson. Al Maine. %. this statement:
The supreme judicial court Is clothe
with most plenary power to maintain
order ana decorum while in session
SUCH powers are absolutely essential
to the proper and orderly dispatch OF
business. For this purpose. it may en-
ploy such subordinate ministerial and
executive officers as may be deeme !
necessary, Such officers. when thus en-
pioyed are the immediate ministers and
servants of the court
Sheriffs are the chief executive officers
OF their respective counties. and as
such, they are authorized and required
10 execute all judicial processes, both
civil and criminal. which eminate from
the Court; and although there is 70
statute which, In terms, REQUIRES them
to attend upon the court in term time,
Net the law does, in many Instances
recognize them as officers of the court
and esta blshes their compensation and
that of their deputies. when in attend
ance at its seSS ons. And so long an |
universally has the custom prevailed for
the sheriff, with his deputies. to give
, Their ATTENDANCE upon the court, at its
sessions, that an omission to do so.
without suh1cient excuse. would he
deemed matter Of absolute derelictiun
of duty on his part
This is duty that this law. common
a I.ly,-
laid Gown by the Supreme Judicial Court
and imposes the duty upon the sheriff
70 execute all judicial processes. both
civil and criminal which eminates
from the Court.
We do find in r. $ Chap. 1a4 Sec. ls,
this provision;
If an officer, authorized to serve pro-
I cess, Wifully and Corruptly refuses to
execute any lawful process to him di-
rected. requiring him to arrest or con-
fine any person charged with or convict
ed of any offense: or thus omits or de-
lays TO execute it. whereby the offender
escapes. he shall be punished By i'm
nrisonment for less than one year and
by fine not exceeding five hundred dol
lars.
And in Sec "A of the same Chapter,
this provision:
If a jailer or other officer voluntarily
suffers any prisoner in his custody 10
escape. he shall be punished. If such
prisoner was convicted of felony
punishable by Imprisonment for life. by
fine not exceeding one thousand dollars
and by Imprisonment for life: if cha rye /
with such felony. by Imprisonment for
not less than five. nor more than fifteen
years; if charged or convicted of any
other offense. by the same penalties and
punishment that such prisoner would
have suffered or been liable to suffer, if
he had not escaped.
And in Section 10. we md this provi.
sion:
If taller or other officer through neg
ligence suffers any prisoner in his Gus
tody for a criminal offenSe to escape
or wilfully refuses to receive into his
custody any prisoner committed to him
on lawful process, he shall be pun
lshed by Imprisonment in Jail for not
more than two years. and by fine not
exceeding five hundred dollars.
From these provisions of statute and
these cisions of the court we are in
structed as to the duties imposed by
law upon the sheriff and his deputies in
the matter of executing lawful pro-
cesses, issued by the supreme judicial
court requiring arrests or confinement
of persons named, charged or convicted
of offenses. And the second count OF
the complaint charges Sheriff White
with having failed to faithfully and eff.
GENTLY execute for the continuing pe-
Rod stated lawful processes issued from,
the supreme judicial court for the
80 re