In re Kays
| Decision Date | 28 May 1888 |
| Citation | 35 F. 288 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
| Parties | In re KAYS, Sheriff. |
George J. Denis, U.S. Atty., and R. B. Carpenter, for the United states.
Stephen M. White, for respondent.
One Gallagher having, for an offense against the laws of the United States, been duly committed to the custody and keeping of the sheriff of Los Angeles county,-- the officer in charge of the jail of the county,-- that officer refused to receive him into his custody unless the government of the United States would pay for the support of the prisoner at the rate of 75 cents per day. The rate fixed by the board of supervisors of the county to be allowed the sheriff for the keeping of prisoners charged with or convicted of offenses against the laws of the state is 35 cents per day, and the agreed case shows that for the keeping of Gallagher the sheriff was, on behalf of the United States government, duly tendered a like sum. The real purpose of the present proceeding, as stated by counsel for the respective parties is to obtain a judicial determination of the rights and obligations of the sheriff in the premises. The question is I think, of easy solution. Be sections 1601 and 1602 of the Penal Code of California, it is declared:
'1601. The sheriff must receive, and keep in the county jail, any prisoner committed thereto by process or order issued under the authority of the United States, until he is discharged according to law, as if he had been committed under process issued under the authority of this state; provision being made by the United States for the support of such prisoner.
It is thus made the duty of the sheriff to receive, and keep in the county jail, until legally discharged, any prisoner committed thereto by process or order issued under the authority of the United States, as if he had been committed under process issued under the authority of the state; provision being made by the United States for the support of such prisoner. And the sheriff is made answerable for his safe-keeping, in the courts of the United States, according to the laws thereof. As the sheriff has the custody and control of the prisoner and is made answerable for his safe-keeping, of course, the provision to be made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holland v. Fayette County
... ... September 23, 1789, asked permission to use the prisons of ... the several states. That permission was generally granted ... Jailers are required to receive and keep these prisoners upon ... the same terms as state prisoners. See In re Kays, ... Sheriff (D. C.) 35 F. 288. A jailer of Kentucky is bound ... to receive persons committed by authority of United States ... and keep them until discharged in due course by the laws of ... the United States. Johnson v. Lewis, 31 Ky. (1 Dana) ... 182. Such a jailer receiving such a prisoner ... ...
-
Bd. of Com'Rs of Tulsa Cnty. v. Mars, Case Number: 29697
...authority, and this is the conclusion reached by the courts which have been called upon to construe statutes similar to our own. In re Kays (D. C.) 35 F. 288; Avery v. Pima County, 7 Ariz. 26, 60 P. 702. It is altogether immaterial that in this instance the contract was made in the name of ......
-
Holland, Jailer, v. Fayette County
...was generally granted. Jailers are required to receive and keep these prisoners upon the same terms as state prisoners. See In re Kays, Sheriff (D.C.) 35 F. 288. A jailer of Kentucky is bound to receive persons committed by authority of United States and keep them until discharged in due co......
-
Avery v. Pima County
...of the United States authorizes payment to the sheriff for "caring for prisoners," whether United States prisoners or others. In re Kays, 35 F. 288. The sheriff is not entitled to extra compensation or reward for doing that which is merely his duty. Stockton v. Shasta, 11 Cal. 113; Shattuck......