
    INCIDENTAL EXPENSES OF SHERIFF AND DEPUTIES.
    Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County.
    John F. Boes, Sheriff, v. Commissioners of Montgomery County et al.
    Decided, February 22, 1908.
    
      Salary Law — Construction of Section Relating to Sheriff’s Additional Compensation — Allowances hy County Commissioners may Properly Include Car Ewe and Telephone Tolls, When — Expenditures which are Necessary to a Proper Administration of the Office — Section 1296-29.
    
    County commissioners in making allowances to the sheriff may properly include items of car fare in the service and return of summons and in serving warrants of arrest on persons charged with lunacy, and telephone tolls where expended in matters pertaining to the duties of the office, where by using the cars and telephone the business of the office may be expedited and a saving effected to' the county over other methods of performing the same service.
    
      B. É. N&vin, H. N. Bouizohn and E. C. Denlinger, for defendants.
   Brown, J.

This matter comes before the court upon the petition, the answer >and the evidence.

It appears from''the evidence that the sheriff presented his bill as of his quarterly report, for the purposes of this case, for the sum of $1.30 expended by him, as stated in the account, to-wit :

Montgomery County,

1907. To John F. Boes, Sheriff, Dr.

Dec. 20. To car fare, Dayton to Miamisburg and return, serving summons in No. 28717, Miami Motor Car Co. v. IT. G. Catrow .................................. $ .30

Dec. 21. To expense on warrant to arrest F. Clencey on lunacy charge, 2 fares, sheriff and assistant, Dayton to New Lebanon and return, 70c; fare of patient, New Lebanon to Dayton, 20c...........................90

Dec. 22. To telephone toll to Isaac Waymire, Englewood, in matter of lunacy of Anna Good................10

Total ..................................• $1.30

This account was rejected by the commissioners .and an appeal was taken under Section 896, Revised Statutes, the commissioners having waived the service of summons and entered their appearance.

The testimony shows the following undisputed facts that the sheriff by expending the sum of thirty cents on December 20 for traction car fare to Miamisburg and return, and serving a summons, saved the -county — not counting the time saved for the deputy — at least $4.70. In the second item the sheriff saved to the county, by the expenditure of ninety cents, at least $4.10.

In this, case, a few weeks before the date named, an order was issued by the probate judge to the sheriff to arrest an insane person in New Lebanon, about eleven miles west of Dayton on the Dayton & Eaton Traction Company’s line, and that in pursuance of said order the sheriff was compelled to hire at that time a carriage, which cost the county five dollars in order to execute the warrant. The insane person, upon .application of relatives, was permitted to return home before being committed to the asylum, he having slightly recovered, and this warrant mentioned in the second item of the bill was under exactly similar circumstances for the arrest of the same person, and the sheriff’s expenses therein, as shown by the bill, amounted to only ninety cents, whereas in the previous arrest the expenses was five dollars; that in the expenditure .of ten cents for telephone in the third item, he saved the county at least $4.90 and a twenty mile drive.

The testimony further shows that the county owns and maintains four horses and the necessary vehicles1, and that by reason of the expenditures mentioned in the itemized account, these horses and vehicles were saved these trips during the period when they were in great demand by other deputies for other duties of the sheriff, required by law.

The question of the allowance of this bill is raised under 98 O. L., 96, Section 19 (Revised Statutes, Section 1296-29), which provides that—

“The county commissioners shall, in addition to the compensation and salary herein provided, malm allowance quarterly to every sheriff for * * * all expenses of maintaining horses and vehicles necessary to the proper administration of the duties of his office. Every sheriff shall file under oath with the quarterly report herein provided for, a full, accurate and itemized account of all his actual and necessary expenses, mentioned in this section' before the same shall be allowed by the county commissioners. ’ ’

We understand that the rule of law is that the court shall strictly construe the statutes authorizing fees and allowances to county officers. But this case is for the repayment only of actual economical expenses by the sheriff to save money to the county, and properly aid in the efficient administration of justice.

“It is the legal duty of the county commissioners to furnish all things, coupled with the administration of justice within the limits of their own county.” Commissioners of Trumbull Co. v. Hutchins, 11 Ohio, 368, 371, decided by our Supreme Court in 1842, has since been the law.

This ease is cited, approved and followed in an exhaustive opinion by Judge Spencer, in the case of Mayhew v. Commissioners of Hamilton County, 1 Disn., 186.

This rule will apply in this case, and the' evidence clearly shows that the items ■ are not allowances to the sheriff and no benefit accrues to him. The sole benefit and saving has been to the county. The sheriff is now a salaried officer and the old rule of law as to fees and -allowances prohibiting such where the statutes do not plainly authorize it, does not apply now.

This section of the statute clearly authorizes the commissioners in “maintaining horses and vehicles necessary to the proper administration of the duties of -the sheriff’s office.”

“Maintain,” as defined by Webster, is to “support, sustain, not to suffer to fall or decline.”

A “vehicle” is defined in the Century dictionary to be “any carriage moving on land, either on wheels or on runners; a conveyance which is used as an instrument of conveyance, transmission or communication.”

In the last of these items the sheriff expended-ten cents for a telephone, which the undisputed testimony shows saved the county at least $4.90. He used -as a vehicle for that purpose the telephone as an -instrument of communication to a man at Harrisburg from whom he obtained information, which saved a trip there, and this saved the county $4.90.

In each of the other items he used the traction cars as a means of conveyance, and in the first item saved the county $4.70, and in the second -item $4.10.

We think that the common sense construction of this portion of the statute would authorize such expenditures, where after proper investigation by the commissioners they find that each item was actually paid by the sheriff in the administration of justice and was a saving to the county. These items were certainly expenses for the maintaining -of vehicles necessary to the proper administration of the duties of the sheriff’s office. It would not be consistent with the law or common sense to require the sheriff in each case to obtain authority from the commissioners, but it should be understood by both the sheriff and the commissioners that the items of expenditure of this nature are legal and should be allowed by the commissioners, because not only does the law and statutes authorize siich expenditures, but by means of such expenditures on the part of the sheriff for the county the county is saved hundreds and thousands of dollars in a year. Under the facts such expenditures are necessary for the prompt and proper administration -of justice.

The testimony shows that the horses have been driven from thirty to fifty miles a day, and that by the expenditure of twenty-five cents on any one of the traction lines leading from the city of Dayton, a drive of twenty miles by a deputy sheriff could be saved, and that if a horse had been hired at a livery stable, as must be done when the horses are in bad condition, there would be a saving in actual cash of from three to five dollars to the county, and thereby there certainly results a maintaining or supporting of the county stable required by law.

After careful -consideration of the facts and the law in this ease, I -am of the4 opinion that this bill should be allowed, and decree accordingly.  