Citation Numbers: 18 Me. 290
Judges: Emery
Filed Date: 6/15/1841
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/24/2021
The opinion of the Court was prepared by
The suit originally was for a penalty of four dollars for neglect of military duty on the 15th of Sept. 1838, and
It was contended, that Z. Washburn, Jr. was clerk because on the record of the roll for 1837, in the proper column for the names of non-commissioned officers, was entered Z. Washburn, Jr. clerk. Captain Farris testified that on the 21st of September, 1837, said Washburn refused to perform the duties of clerk and he appointed the original plaintiff clerk pro tern, at the same time the said Wash-bum however said he was ready as clerk to call the roll, but as to any thing further he knew nothing about the duties of a clerk. Washburn being called by the defendant testified that on said 21st of Sept, he was willing to perform the duties of clerk, and did call the roll but did not parade the company, because he was not familiar enough with the business, and declined on that account alone.
On the report of the magistrate of the trial in the form of exceptions, the court do not consider that the facts stated authorized the appointment of a clerk pro tempore.
The judgment is therefore reversed,.