Commonwealth vs. Mitchell. our opinion, this evidence, both intrinsic and extrinsic, when carefully analyzed, satisfactorily establishes the contract essentially as set up and sought to be enforced by the appellant. ed. Wherefore, the judgment of the circuit court is affirm CASE 14-INDICTMENT No. 2-DECEMBER 10. Commonwealth vs. Mitchell. APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT. 1. A jailer cannot be indicted for failing to keep the jail clean and in condition to promote the health and comfort of prisoners, &c., and a demurrer to such an indictment was properly sustained. 2. It is the duty of the county judge, from time to time, to prescribe rules for the government and cleanliness of the jail, and the comfort and treatment of prisoners; and the judge of the county court shall inspect the jail at least once a month, and shall have power, by fine or otherwise, to enforce the rules and punish the jailer for neglect thereof or disobedience thereto. (Sec. 11, art. 2, chap. 91, 2 Stant. Rev. Stat., 349.) JOHN RODMAN, Attorney General, CITED For Appellant, Rev. Stat., sec. 4, chap. 91, 2 Stant., 347. CHIEF JUSTICE PETERS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT: This is an indictment against appellee, as jailer of Daviess county, for failing to keep the jail clean and in a condition to promote the health and comfort of prisoners Commonwealth vs. Mitchell. who might be confined therein from time to time; and a demurrer having been sustained to the indictment, the Commonwealth has appealed. Whether or not the offense charged in the indictment is punishable at common law, we need not discuss, since the Legislature has provided an effectual remedy for such dereliction of duty in the jailer, which is so complete in itself that it must be regarded as the only mode for the punishment and prevention of the offense. By section 11, article 2, chapter 91, 2 Revised Statutes, 349, it is provided, that "it shall be the duty of the county court, from time to time, to prescribe rules for the government and cleanliness of the jail and the comfort and treatment of prisoners; and the judge of the county court shall inspect the jail at least once a month, and shall have power, by fine or otherwise, to enforce the rules and punish the jailer for neglect thereof or disobedience thereto." This statutory remedy, so ample and complete within itself to secure a faithful discharge of this necessary and important legal duty of jailers, extending the power to enforce a performance thereof, or, for a non-performance, to remove the delinquent officer, supersedes any other mode of redress. Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed. Commonwealth vs. Adams, &c. CASE 15-PETITION ORDINARY-DECEMBER 11. Commonwealth vs. Adams, &c. APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT. 1. "We, the undersigned, authorize Thomas Pearce, jr., to sign our names to any bond required by law of W. J. Brewer, sheriff elect of Henry county, September, 1865." Held-That the agent under this power had no right, and was not authorized, to sign the names of his principals to the old revenue bond of Brewer, which had been executed in February, 1865; and that the agent transcended his authority, and his act in putting their names to said bond, is not obligatory on them. 2. Any bond required by law to be executed by a sheriff, should be regarded as an official bond, both in contemplation of the Constitution and the statute. 3. Persons who, in September, 1865, voluntarily signed their names to the sheriff's old bonds, which had been executed in February, 1865, became liable to the same extent as if they had signed their names to such bonds when they were first executed in February, 1865. 4. The county court had the power, as often as it deemed proper, to rule the sheriff to give additional sureties; and the signatures of the new sureties, whether signed to the old or new bonds, would make the bonds so signed by them official bonds as to such cureties. JOHN RODMAN, Attorney General, and JOHN M. HARLAN, ex-Attorney General, CITED For Appellant, Rev. Stat., 2 Stant., 261, 344, 339, 262, 396. 14 B. Mon., 29; Commonwealth for Hains vs. Teal, &c. W. S. PRYOR, CITED For Appellees, Rev. Stat., 2 Stant., sec. 3, p. 262; sec. 11, p. 260; secs. Commonwealth vs. Adams, &c. JUDGE WILLIAMS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT: Brewer, being elected sheriff of Henry county at the February term, 1865, of the Henry county court, executed the general official bond, the revenue bond, and county levy bond. September 18th, 1865, pursuant to an order of the county court to give additional security, G. C. Adams and Elston signed all of said bonds. September 23d, 1865, the court having required further security, the names of D. C. Adams, Barton, and Harford, were also signed to said bond, as additional sureties, by attorney. Brewer, having collected a large amount of the State revenue, and having failed to pay it over, this motion was brought by the State to recover it on the revenue bond. The defendants, D. C. Adams, Barton, and Harford, set up that they gave the following power of attorney, and none other: "We, the undersigned, authorize Thomas Pearce, jr., to sign our names to any bond required by law of W. J. Brewer, sheriff elect of Henry county, September, 1865." That, a few days previous to the court's last order, Brewer applied to them to become his surety on an additional bond, to be executed by him as sheriff, and thereupon they executed said power of attorney; that when it was given there was no order of court made requiring him to execute bond or give additional security; that, on the day of this last order, Brewer delivered said power of attorney to Pearce, the agent, who signed their names, without their knowledge or consent, to the original bonds executed in February, 1865; and they deny that these are their bonds; they deny the legal right of the county court to require additional security on the revenue bond of the sheriff, and ask to be exonerated. The manifest object of both the sheriff and these sureties was to execute such bond as might be necessary and Commonwealth vs. Adams, &c. legally required by the court of him, in order for his further continuance in office. By the act of February 25, 1862 (Myers' Supplement, 395, section 2), it is made the duty of the sheriff to attend, two days, in each election district, to receive the taxes due the State, after giving thirty days' public notice, between the first day of September and fifteenth of October in each year. The time of so attending to receive the taxes is altered by the subsequent act of February 26, 1863 (same book, 396), from October 1st to November 15th, in each year; but by section 4 of the first named act it is made the duty of the sheriff, at the July, September, and November terms of the county court, to make a written statement, under oath, of the amount of revenue collected and in his hands, due the State, which statement shall be filed by order of the court, and a copy thereof transmitted by the clerk to the Auditor of Public Accounts; and it shall be the duty of the sheriff, immediately after making each statement, to pay into the public treasury the revenue in his hands, as exhibited by said statement, after deducting his commission for its collection; and thus the law stood when defendants' names were put to this bond by said agent under said letter of attorney. If this bond is obligatory upon these appellees at all, it is so from its date, and fixes their liability for all delinquencies of the sheriff prior to the date of said letter of attorney; for this court cannot, by proof aliunde, fix the time when their names were attached, and hold them responsible only for future delinquencies of their principal. By the first section of this act it is made the duty of the sheriff to proceed immediately after the first day of June in each year to collect the State revenue. It was the duty of the sheriff to report the amount collected in |