The Chattanooga news. [volume] (Chattanooga, Tenn.) 1891-1939, 1918-06-04

charges of which he II guilty, The
answer ~ that when DEGREES are shown
70 have heon obtained BY fraud or col
\ luhlon. they are set aside and allowed
TO have no eject. OF course there ID
no suggestion that such thing Ia true
" the present case or could he true OF
the attorney general OF the state In any
case He has. prosecuted both OF these
SUITS with the utmost seal and ability.
Again. u may be said that this de-
Tense of former suit bending "A tech.
nical and that susfaintpe--ft cuts or
INQUIRY into the merits Of the ease ii
does not have this effect. n the for
lncr suit ia dismissed without a hear
Ing on It's marita the merits NAV sfill
ne incurred into In another suit. This
defense is based upon the ohviouaiv
lust principle that a litieant may nct
hafraas his opponent with two az
more law suits about the same matter
al The same time.
IN" foregoing IA conclusive Of the
present rnse, but | cannot refrain
from expressing nv views upon some
aspectA OF the merits OF the ease.
Where the defendant reeeivtd
Tees In the honest though mlstAken
belief that thcy were authorized hv
law aud such fees were received n
accordance with q custom existing ,or
many Years and never questioned in
thls anu other counties Of the states I
am or oplnion that he cannot Ne held
70 have thereby knowingly or wtlisuf.
" miseonducted himself In offce Or a.
nave committed acts involving nnral
tun'fude within the meaning of tha
custer law ! have attended with care
tne very able arguments ~ counsel
tor me state In this reEard, but 70 nv
.nlnu their tnsistenea Involves In fhe
ias' ANALYSIS contradiction In terms.
hehAonh OF convenience NAV re
dulro that the appearance honda ~
accused persons be taken at the off,c~
OF me sherlH where record can be
made OF the same rather than ~ the
HtreAtinE officer Rt the time aud ptsca
or making the arrest nut going 10
the shertms Office IN the iaii 10 give a
bond and making record of the same
~ not Imprisonment constructive or
otherwise, No turnkey fee Is due az
should be demanded or received ex.
cent where the accused "a actually
.ominhted 10 the tail for fhe bona
hdr pufpose OF confinement.
D. Under the net of lsif, TO entgtie
thf sheriff 10 charge aud receive a per
diom for keeping and feeding a prts.
oner u IL not enough that the prisoner
was confined In the iati a. the moment
the iniler made his computations and
began his preparation foF a meal The
requirement of the statute IL that he
must actually feed" the prisoner. This
language r. imperative and cannot be
made 10 yield by construct len to the
convenience OF tho iailer #ff literal
compliance with the statute Win cause
the iailer Inconvenience and expense In
keoplr account OF the prisoners he
ncU dy feeds. or u II oecasionally re-
~ in small loss, these are bur-
4 ma which the jailer must assume
along with the emoluments OF the Of
hcc, The proof In the case does not
show any specific instance IN which the
sheriff has charged per diem for q
prisoner not actually fed, but on the
stand he stated what his opinion was
iE % the effcct 81 the statute and
y hat course he would pursue. unless
advised 20 the contrary. Hence the
foregoing observation.
The purpose and effect of the stat
tie WAS nrst. 20 ehanee the custom
u feeding prisoners confined IN fail
,nlv two meals a dav and 10 REQUIRE
hat thev ~ regularly fed three meals
,er day. aud second 20 establish the
nstom of charging per diem for
'riaonrrs who were merely confined
or a short period without being ted at
a. The custom which must have
'ern equally well,known 70 the leg
stature. Of not recognizing divisions
4 daS and charging fun ner diem
here oniv one meal was given vas
10, touched THE requirement II sirn-
Nv that the prisoner be actually ifed.
This is the view Of judge MeReyRolds
nd { think u h correct.
For the reason nrst above stated
he bill will be dismissed with costs