Opinion ID: 2399233
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Expense of Food Purchased by the Jailer from his own Farm

Text: The jailer claimed credit for expenses for food in the amount of $8,944.45. Objection was made to the allowance of this item because it appeared that a substantial amount of the food was purchased by the jailer from a farm owned by him individually. The lower court held that the expense was allowable, on the theory that so long as the food expense did not exceed the fees paid by the county for keeping and dieting the prisoners, it was immaterial where or at what price the food was purchased. Under KRS 64.150, prior to a 1954 amendment, the jailer was entitled to be paid out of the county treasury, for keeping and dieting prisoners confined for an offense other than a felony or contempt of court, the sum of $1.25 per day for each prisoner. The 1954 amendment, effective in June 1954, raised the allowance to $1.75 per day. (There is a provision in the statute, as amended, for an allowance of a fee equal to the reasonable cost of providing such services, not exceeding, per day . . . . . 1.75, but it appears from an examination of the history of the statute that this provision was intended to apply only in counties containing a city of the first class.) It is asserted in the pleadings that the actual fee paid by Warren County, in 1954, was 45 cents per day, and that the amount expended by the jailer for food did not exceed this amount. We think the question is simply one of the reasonableness of the expenditures for food. Obviously, if the jailer purchases food from himself at an excessive price, he will receive a hidden profit at the expense of the county. Any difference between the fee paid for dieting the prisoners, and the reasonable cost of the food, constitutes compensation to the jailer. So, contrary to the opinion of the lower court, it does make a difference how much the jailer expends for food. It is our opinion that when a jailer purchases food from himself, the expense should be treated as prima facie invalid. The burden then is upon the jailer to show convincingly that the price paid did not exceed the prevailing price from normal suppliers. Records should be produced to show the date of each purchase, the product and quantity, and there should also be satisfactory evidence concerning quality, which is an important controlling factor in the price of food. The lower court erred in unconditionally allowing credit for the food expense. The expense should be held not allowable unless the reasonableness is proved in the manner above specified.