Case Name: Board of Supervisors of Itawamba County v. D. B. Candler
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1884-10
Citations: 62 Miss. 193
Docket Number: 
Parties: Board of Supervisors of Itawamba County v. D. B. Candler.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 193–195

Head Matter:
Board of Supervisors of Itawamba County v. D. B. Candler.
Reward. Arrest for homicide. Section 3035, Code 1880, construed.
Section 3035 of the Code of 1880 provides that “Any person who shall arrest any one who has killed another, and is fleeing, or attempting to flee, before arrest, and shall deliver him up for trial, shall be entitled to the sum of one hundred dollars.” One who under this statute arrests and delivers up for trial for homicide a person who has been previously arrested for the same killing, and tried and discharged by a committing magistrate, is not entitled to the reward mentioned.
Appeal from tlie Circuit Court of Itawamba County.
Hon. J. W. Buchanan, Judge.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
Newman Cayce, for the appellant.
Before any one can rightfully claim the reward given by § 3035, B. C. 1880, it must be shown that claimant arrested 'the slayer before any other arrest, and that the slayer was fleeing, or attempting to flee, when the arrest was made.
Even if Lackey had fled to the State of Georgia after his arrest by private persons or by an officer, and had then been arrested by Candler, very clearly Candler could not claim the reward he does claim, because the flight of Lackey would have been subsequent to, and not before, arrest. I submit, therefore, that from the proof Candler was not, nor could he be, entitled to the reward. Candler’s proof fails to show even primd facie that his claim is within the statute, while the proof adduced by appellants shows that he is clearly not within the letter or spirit of the statute.
The 'statute under which the reward is claimed is for the sole purpose of inciting private persons, or possibly an officer, to apprehend any one who has killed another, and is fleeing, or attempting to flee, before arrest.
L. Brame and H. H. Parker, on the same side.
It is clear that the statute contemplates that only one reward shall be paid for the arrest of any one man in any case. The language is: “ Any person who shall arrest any one who has killed another, and is fleeing, or attempting to flee, before arrest, and shall deliver him up for trial,” etc. Code 1880, § 3035.'
No" counsel for the appellee.

Opinion:
Arnold, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The question presented for decision in this case is whether or not appellee is entitled to the statutory reward of one hundred dollars for arresting a person who had killed another, and was fleeing, or attempting to flee, before arrest. It appears from the record that Lewis Lackey was charged with murdering his wife in Itawamba County, in October, 1882; that, under a warrant issued by a jus tice of the peace of the county, he was arrested for this offense and tried and discharged by the justice of the peace; ' that shortly afterward Lackey, with his children, left for the State of Georgia, where he had formerly lived; that subsequently, under a requisition from the Governor of Mississippi, based on the same charge, appellee caused Lackey, to be arrested in Georgia, and brought him back and delivered him to the sheriff of Itawamba County. After some proceedings not necessary to be noticed in disposing of the case, appellee presented to the circuit court of that county his account for one hundred dollars against the county for making the last arrest and delivering the prisoner to the sheriff, which was allowed by the court. Afterward the account thus approved was presented to the board of supervisors of the county and they refused to allow it. Appellee took a bill of exceptions and appealed to the circuit court, where the judgment of .the board of supervisors was reversed and judgment rendered against the county for the amount of the account) and the board appealed to this court and assign for error that the circuit court erred in reversing the judgment of the board of supervisors and entering judgment in favor of appellee.
The decision of the board of supervisors should have been affirmed. The claim was not within the statute. Lackey had been arrested by another for the offense with which he was charged, and tried and discharged by a justice of the peace of the county, before he was arrested by appellee. By the very terms of the statute the allowance of such claim is authorized only when some one is arrested who has killed another, and is fleeing, or attempting to flee, before arrest, etc. Code 1880, §' 3035.
Reversed, and judgment final here for appellants.