Nickell v. Cnty. of Waukesha

• Decision Date: 03 March 1885
• Citation: 22 N.W. 737,62 Wis. 469
• Parties: NICKELL v. COUNTY OF WAUKESHA.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

62 Wis. 469

22 N.W. 737

NICKELL

v.COUNTY OF WAUKESHA.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Filed March 3, 1885.

Appeal from circuit court, Waukesha county.

The plaintiff presented to the board of supervisors of Waukesha county his itemized account for fees, charges, and services as sheriff of the county, which was in part disallowed. He then appealed therefrom to the circuit court. In that court the jury was waived, and it was stipulated that the cause be tried before the court “upon the papers and pleadings in the case, and upon the following statement of facts:

“ First. That the appellant now is, and ever since the first day of January, A. D. 1883, has been, the sheriff of Waukesha county, duly elected, qualified, and acting as such. Second. That as such sheriff he rendered the services and incurred the expense enumerated and set forth in the bills against the county of Waukesha, by him rendered and presented to the county board of said county, from the disallowance of which this appeal is taken. Third. That so far as the appellant's bill for board and washing for prisoners is concerned, $2.50 per week is a reasonable and proper charge for the same, if he is entitled to any charge therefor against the county. Fourth. That the charges made by the appellant in the arrest, trial, commitment, and discharge of prisoners, as set forth in said bills, are the legal fees given the sheriff by statute for such services, (saving the objection, however, on the part of the respondent, that the county is not liable in this action.) Fifth. That the charges of said sheriff for board and washing for prisoners, and fees in the matter of the arrest, trial, commitment, and discharge of said prisoners, disallowed in said bills by the county board of Waukesha county, and from which disallowance this appeal is taken, were all in cases of prisoners arrested and committed to the jail of said county under proceedings such as are here shown by the copies hereunto annexed of the docket entries, complaint, warrant, judgment, and commitment in the case of State of Wisconsin against James Quinn, which is hereby stipulated to be a typical case as regards such proceedings. Sixth. That all of said cases were tried before E. W. Chafin, a justice of the peace in the village of Waukesha, and that said Chafin was elected and acted under and by virtue of chapter 270 of the Laws of the State of Wisconsin for the year 1881. Seventh. It is further stipulated and agreed, by and between the parties to this action, that in case of an appeal to the supreme court from the decisions of the circuit court, that the notice of appeal in this action, the bond on said appeal, and the return of the county clerk of said Waukesha county thereto, shall form a part of the bill of exceptions in the case. Dated June 5, 1884.”

In the case of State v. Quinn, referred to in the stipulation, the defendant was charged with being “found in the public streets of said village of Waukesha intoxicated, in violation of chapter seven of the ordinances of said village of Waukesha.” The warrant embodied the charge, and prayed that “Quinn might be arrested and dealt with according to law.” From the docket of the justice named in the stipulation, it appears that Quinn was arrested and brought before the court. On being tried he was adjudged to pay a fine of one dollar and the costs of the action, and on default be committed to the common jail of the county for five days. Quinn having neglected and refused to pay the fine and costs, was forthwith committed to jail for the term named, upon a commitment issued by the justice, and running to any constable, and to the keeper of the jail of said county. The plaintiff, as sheriff, received the prisoner on the commitment, and held and kept him in the jail of the county thereon during the term named. The circuit court found, upon the evidence, stipulation, and admissions, in effect, that the plaintiff, as such sheriff, rendered the services and incurred the expenses enumerated and set forth in his bills against the county, and from the disallowance of which by the county board he had appealed; that such charges were reasonable and proper, and such as the law allows; that such charges so disallowed “for services in the arrest, trial, commitment, and discharge of prisoners” amounted to the sum of $125.95; and that such charges so disallowed for the board and washing for the prisoners confined in the county jail of said county amounted to the sum of $183.57, and as conclusions of law the court found that the county was liable to the plaintiff for the amount of each and both of said claims, and ordered...