Wright, was convicted, as charged in the indictment, of highway robbery, and has since been sentenced to fifteen years in the penitentiary, where he is now lodged and boarded at the expense of the state.
" Immediately after his conviction, I applied to the comity judge for mileage or traveling expenses, w4io refused to make any allowa,nce for either. I then applied to th3 district attorney, who claimed thirty dollars of the money in the sheriff's hands, as he hiformed me the law allowed it to him. I then applied to the sheriff for the money taken from the prisoner, who declined to pay out any of the money, except on the order of the judge, as several parties claimed it, to wit: The prisoner's attorney, the district attorney, and myself After the sentence of Wright, I applied by letter to the county judge before whom he was tried and convicted, for an order on the sheriff to pay the money to me. His answer is as follows:
San Andreas, May 1, 1877. 31'iIo Hoadley, Esq., San Francisco.
Dear Sir :—I do not think the court entitled to make any order directing the sheriff to pay over to you the money taken from Wright. It was in proof that money was taken from you by Wright. But that it was the identical coin was not proved, and even in the latter case would not have been under control of the court till after conviction. Your remedy was by a civil action for moneys had and received, commenced in justice's court. By attaching the cohi in the sherift^'s hands before the trial of Wright, you could have recovered judgment against him upon the conviction, and so received what the sheriff" held.
Yours, Respectfully,
IRA H. REED.
" If the law, as practised in your country, is the law of the state, it is time it was changed; and so long as such is the practise under the law or against the law, if I am so unfortunate as to meet another highwayman, I will settle the matter by a draft on sight or
