The Lexington advertiser., 1938-09-01

mado by members of boards of
supervisors. county superintendents
of education, sheriffs, and tax
collectors, and chancery and circuit
clerks, and their deputies, shall be
made in a surety company author
lied to do business in Mississippi,
and the premiums thereon shall be
paid out of the treasury of the re-
spective counties and levee boards,
but, provided any such officer or
deputy may make affidavit that
he has made diligent effort to OBJ
tain the surety bond required by
this section, and was unable to do
so, and in such event such officer
or deputy may make his officia!
bond with two or 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 fail
ure to pay money received on ex-
ecution 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 1913, Code 1880, further pro-
vides:
When any fine. penalty, or judg-
ment shall be assessed or rendered
against sheriff or his surety for
or on account of any misconduct
of a deputy, the court in which the
fine, penalty or judgment shall be
rendered, shall, upon motion of the
sheriff or his sureties give judg-
ment against the deputy and his
surety, Jointly and severally for the
full amount of all such fines, PEN
alties or judgments, and shall award
execution therefor; but the deputy
and his surety shall have five days
notice of such motion.
proceed against their deputies and
sureties on their bonds.
S. Alleged illegal payments to A. B.
Holder sheriff, account prisoners $633.80;
that A. B. Holder, sheriff, received be-
tween November 1884, and January 1886,
excess payments for feeding prisoners
in the sum of $433.S0 and excess Jail
fees in the sum of $4,000, making a
total of $633.S0. There is no contention
that the correct number of prisoners
for the proper number of days were not
fed at the Jail, but that the sheiff col
lected 60 cents a day for each prisoner
instead of so cents day. There is no
contention that the Jail fees of $4,000
were not due the sheriff, but it is con-
tended the same could not be paid out
OF the county treasury.
8. Alleged illgal payments to w. l..
Ellis, sheriff, account prisoners 81 1,269.2O.
II is alleged that w. L. Ellis, sheriff re-
ceived between January 1886, to May
1888, excess payments for feeding prison
ers in the sum of $9502O, and excess
Jail fees in the sum of $4,000, making
total of $1,26920. There is no con-
tention that the correct number of
prisoners for proper number of days
were not fed at the Jail, but that the
sheriff collected 60 cents day for each
v.
is no contention that the Jail fees of
$4,000 were not due the sheriff, but
it is contended the same could not be
paid out of the county treasury.
Section 65O5, Code 1880, which brings
forward Chapter 81 of Extraordinary
Session of Legislature 1928, and Chapter
2O6 OF Laws of 1924, contains this pro-
vision
(b) In respect to victualing of
prisoners and inmates of county
Jail, the sheriff shall victual the
prisoners and inmates of the Jail of
the county, and shall make out a
detailed list of said prisoners and
inmates of the jail, and the time
each was victualed by him, and shall
make affidavit as to the correctness
thereof, and shall present the
same to the board of supervisors for
payment by them, as of all other
accounts coming before them, and
the board shall audit the same, and
shall pay the same to the sheriff
out OF the county treasury. The
amount to be paid to the sheriff for
same shall be fixed by said board
at sum OF not less than 40 cents
per day and not to exceed go cents
per day per inmate.
After the passage of this Act, the
amount was fixed by the Board of Super
vissrs at GO cents per day and there
does not seem to have been any change
in the order of the board to that effect.
1t is contended by the State Auditor
that this amount per day to be paid for
feeding prisoners has since been reduced
to 80 cents DAY, and that the differ
ences above claimed as over payments
to sheriff A. B. Holder and to sheriff
W. L. Ellis of 10 cents a day for feed
ing prisoners should be repaid by the
above sheriffs or the sureties on their
bonds into the county treasury.
The Jail fees of $4,000 alleged to be
due by A. b. Holder, ex-sheriff, and
$4,000 due by W. L. Ellis, present
sheriff, were claimed and collected by
above named sheriffs under the proyis-
ions Of Section 1889 Code 1880, fees 20