5*. I TilE following u a true copy of the record? in the ca«« io whichl(WPc«II?adi»!SSheriff Shobe received $200 f.»r thearrest of a hone thief. We also give extracts from Supremo court decisions which does not place the matter in a favorable light :Hatcs Co. To I.uthor Shohe. Tr. I cTo tlips.rr.vt of TIoh. .Miller, * hor** thief. I ..wim M*ntencclt;l at the November term. 1CJ, of j the It.ites e-miity circuit eourt. $-*00.” I fI Xo»v at tlifs «l;iy eoine tin* followinc parties „ * and lile herein tliei*- claims n^ain-t l!at*\s jcounty in the folloirinj; sams ami following j •**fpurpose* ami which sai.l claims were allovrcil ! w r anJ warrants .irawn:’**'b. Iiolie. reward for e-itchitie hori»o thief ! •*$*•••. -Itccor.I No. 4. p..*. 7.)nState if Mis-,.uri county of llite.i, ■«lt;,’’ | I• J Smith, clerk of the canty coart in | ami for the county of Itatcs auds'ate aforesaid j iici cl.y eertifi the altovc to lie a true copy of '* j the claim, an \ the order «.f court allow! lt;lt;the -anie. as the same nrn- !:!« I .m l allowed on the » k’ , -l«t Ja of daiiu try, IsTj,itsi1I s• —' — Witness my h nd with the seal of the I skil. county e .ayt, this Jlr day of Oet s ; A.I.. |vt. W. j. Smith. fY-rfc. fj Judge bcott in the case of Kickao• iB : v. Merry it) 2od Missouri reports1 I decides that,'■m *.. | ‘-Alt ag-eomepf to reward a public t i ollie.T, a policeman, for doing tint ; which if i* his duty by law. to do, is , ! void as against public policy.”T.And iu the body of the decision he says.i IIt would lend to abuses of the moat ; m*nous nature, if «uch contracts formed i «*ii stu h considerations were Ip-Id to he j legal.** Tile c.a*e of (.ilmore Vs. L«*wi.s (12 Ohio. 2S|.) holds • •• That It is indi,-j I a hie i'lie nee, iu put.lie officers, to exact J and receive anything more, for the , performance of their legal duty, than ; the fees allowed hy «r:lt;rip». A promise ! t pav them extra e.unpensaticu is nb-s site I v void. a reward offered for : *h apprehension of a tlref, and the re-j f i coyerv of tile motley stolen, cannot he! (daimed hv a constable who arrears the! thief, hv virtue of :i wartnnt delivered• •I .1KliSIto him tor that purpose.** |u the easelliuof !*ool vs. the city of Iloston. who ! while in the discharge of hi* duty. m* i such, discovers a person setting tire to a building, and pro*e,ur,'* him t.» conviction. js not entitl' d to claim a reward j oil* red !*v the city government for the.-”1*1tid t« etion and conviction of an inceti- *N! diary/’ 1 a