People ex rel. Holley v. Supervisors of the County of Columbia

Headnote

A constable actotilyattcnding court, nnder the statute (sess. 42, ch. to hisSfe™titho’ ho do not actuconstable^6 Itls enough that he is attending and ready to k no objection to allowing ■that he was a anTXuended court as such,

An alternative mandamus had been issued, and- served upon the defendants, commanding them to audit and allow the account of Holley, for his services as a constable in ai- - ' . ’. tending the Court oí Oyer and- Terminer, and the Court of Common Pleas and General Sessions of the county of Columbia; he having been duly summoned to attend, by the’ Sheriff, and having attended accordingly, pursuant to the act 0f the 5th March, 1819, (sess, 42, ch. 27. )

The/iretUrn stated that Holley was an. acting deputy of Sheriff during all the time for which he claimed pay as constable; that he attended as á deputy, not as constable ; did not carry a staff, or perform any of the duties Perta™n§to the office of a constable. Upon this grotiild, they denied him fees as coiistable.