One case has arisen under the Indiana act as amended in 1901. On November 20, 1902, James Dillard, a negro who had committed the crime of rape, was taken from the custody of John S. Dudley, the sheriff of Sullivan County, Indiana, and “lynched by hanging until dead.” Dudley had been elected sheriff at the general election held in November, 1900, and William P. Maxwell had been elected coroner of Sullivan County. At the general election held in November, 1902, each had been elected as his own successor. On the day following the lynching of Dillard, Governor Durbin notified Maxwell that the office of sheriff of Sullivan County was vacant, and that he, as coroner, under the law succeeded to the duties of the office. Maxwell thereupon demanded of Dudley the possession of the office. This Dudley refused to give, and within ten days after the lynching occurred, as provided for in the statute, filed with the governor a petition for reinstatement in the office. After hearing the petition and the evidence in support of it, Governor Durbin denied the petition and refused to reinstate him. Governor Durbin then notified the board of commissioners of Sullivan County of the vacancy in the office of sheriff and suggested that the board appoint a successor to Dudley. The board of commissioners took no action, however, and Maxwell brought suit under a _quo warranto_ statute, to oust Dudley from the office. In the circuit court of Sullivan County a judgment for the defendant was rendered, and on an appeal to the supreme court of Indiana the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. The issues in the case were purely questions of law, it being held that Maxwell did not have ground for action under the _quo warranto_ statute, and the supreme court expressed no opinion on the constitutionality of the amendatory act of 1901.[308] Thus, the outcome of this case was, in effect, to nullify the operation of the statute which removes a sheriff from office when he allows a prisoner to be taken from his custody and lynched. The fact that Dudley continued to exercise the duties of his office after the lynching occurred, and successfully refused to vacate the office in response to the demands of the coroner, indicates that public sentiment in the community did not support the execution of the provisions of the law. Newspaper reports of the case intimate, however, that politics entered into the question to some extent.