Gould v. Chickasaw County
Mississippi Supreme Court
Gould v. Chickasaw County, 85 Miss. 123 (Miss. 1904)
Truly
Gould v. Chickasaw County
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
Appellant was not entitled to recover the statutory reward for arresting a fleeing homicide. lie did not comply with the terms of § 1387, Code 1892, granting such rewards, for the reason that he did not “deliver him up for trial.”' Again, the appellant was a sheriff, an officer charged by law with the duty of making arrests, and, as such, not entitled to-any reward for performing an act which was simply in the-discharge of his official duty. Sand. & H. Dig. St. Ark., sec. 7162; Railway Co. v. Grafton, 51 Ark., 508 (11 S. W., 702; 14 Am. St. Rep., 66); Monroe County v. Bell (Miss.), 18 South., 121.
Affirmed..
Reference
- Full Case Name
- James Gould v. Chickasaw County
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Rewabds. Fleeing murderer. Code 1892, § 1387. Construction. Sheriff of another state. Legal duty. An Arkansas sheriff, arresting in that state a person who killed another in this state and who’ was fleeing before arrest, where he merely notified, by telegraph, the sheriff of the county in which the homicide was committed of the arrest, is not entitled to the reward provided for under Code 1892, § 1387, authorizing the payment of one hundred dollars out of the county treasury for the arrest and delivery up for trial of a fleeing homicide, because: (а) He did not deliver up the prisoner for trial within the meaning of the statute; and (б) He was under legal duty to have made the arrest.