99 Mo. App. 672 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1903
This is a suit by plaintiff for a part of his salary, alleged as due him as marshal of the defendant city. It was admitted that he was the defendant’s marshal for the time for which he claims
The court sitting as a jury found for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
As the evidence did not show that said pamphlet purporting to contain the ordinance regulating the salary of the city marshal was published by the authority of the city council, the plaintiff .was not precluded from showing the contents of such ordinance as it passed the city council, the same having been lost or destroyed. Wells v. Pressy, 105 Mo. 164.
And plaintiff was entitled to his salary for the time during which he was sick and unable to perform the duties of the office. Bates v. St. Louis, 153 Mo. 18; State v. Walbridge, idem, 194.
Respondent has filed what is claimed to be an authentic copy of the original ordinance, but as appellant has not agreed that it is such, we can not consider it.
Cause reversed and remanded.