The Durant news. (Durant, Miss.) 1882-1985, 1938-09-01

bond in the sum of s500000, premium
paid surety company $3.50; in JAN
uary 1887, premium of $500 was
paid surety company for that year
on bond of Miss Julia Heinrich, as
deputy chancery clerk; in January
1887. premium of $500 was paid SUI
rety company for that year on bond
of Mrs. Elaine Ellington, as deputy
chancery clerk; in February 1887, pre-
MUM of $6500 was paid surety COM
pany for that year on bond of ]. c.
Reid, as deputy sheriff; in February
1887, premium of $3.50 was paid
urety company for that year on
bond of Monroe Roach, as deputy
aerrif; in January 1898, premium
of $500 was paid surety company
for that year on bond of Miss Julia
.ienrich, as deputy chancery clerk;
in January 1888, premium of $500
was paid surety company for that
ear on bond of Mrs. Elaine Filing
ton, as deputy chancery clerk; in
February 1888, premium of $4,000 was
paid surety company for that year
on bond Of j. c. Reid, as deputy
sheriff, in February 1896, premium of
$3.50 was paid surety company for
that year on bond of j. Monroe
Roach, as deputy sheriff; to-
tai amount of premiums so paid
$4,000 These bonds are made paya-
BILE to the State as provided by law.
The above mentioned premiums on
the bonds of deputy sheriffs and
deputy chancery clerks were paid
by the county under the authority
of Section 2S97 of the Code of 1880,
which reads as follows:
All bonds required by law to be
made by members of boards of }
supervisors, county superinten-
dents of education, sheriffs, and
tax collectors. and chancery clerks
and their deputies, shall be made
in a surety company authorized
to do business in Mississippi, and
the premiums thereon shall be
paid out of the treasury of the
respective counties and levee
boards, but, provided any such
officer or deputy may make af-
fidavit that he has made dilligent
effort to obtain the surety bond
required by his section, and was
unable to do So in such event
such officer or deputy may make
more personal sureties, qualified
as provided by law.
Section 1912, Code 1880. provides:
The sheriff shall have the same
remedy and judgment against
his deputies and their sureties
for failure to pay money received
on execution or other process to
the sheriff or to the party to
whom the same is payable, and
for any other act or default in
office, as the creditor at whose
suit such writ issued may have
against the sheriff
Section 1918, Code of 1880, further
provides:
When any fine, penalty or judg-
ment shall be assessed or rem
dered against a sheriff or his
surety for or on account of any
misconduct Of deputy, the court
in which the fine, penalty or
Judgment shall be rendered, shall
upon motion of the sheriff or
his sureties give Judgment against
the deputy and his surety, joint
" and severally for the. fun
amount of all such fines, penal
ties or judgments, and shall
award execution therefor; but
the deputy and his surety shall
have five days notice of such mo-
ton.
Chancery court clerks may like
wise proceed against their deputies
and sureties on their bond
8. Alleged illegal payments to A.
B. Holder, sheriff, account prison.
ers, $63380; page Is Auditors re-
port, it is alleged that A. B. Holder.
sheriff, received between November
1884 and January 1886, excess pay
ments for feeding prisoners in the
sum of 1880 and excess Jail fees
in the sum of $4,000. making a to-
tai of $3.50. There is no conten-
ton that the correct number Of
prisoners for proper number Of days
were not fed At the jail. but that
the sheriff collected 60 cents a day
for each prisoner instead OF 50 cents
day. There is no contention that
the jail fees of $4,000 were not due
the sheriff, but 1t is contended the
same could not be paid out Of the
county treasury.
g. Alleged illegal payments to w.
L. Ellis. sheriff. account prisoners,
$l,26S20. It is alleged that w. L.
Ellis, sheriff, received between jan
rary 1886 to May 1888, excess pay
ments for feeding prisoners in the
sum of $4,000. and excess jail fees
in sum of $4,000, making total Of