court found that "lilt is elementary that there can be no deputy without there first being a principal; the principal being the duly elected, qualified and acting official of the county." Id. at 290. The general and well-affirmed rule is that, in the absence of some statutory provision to the contrary, the commission or appointment of a deputy officer runs or continues only during the term of the officer making the appointment. Of course, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, the principal has the right, at his pleasure, to remove his deputy. Id. (quoting Hord v. State, 167 Ind. 622, 79 N.E. 916, 922 (1907)). "If the principal officer is re-elected or reappointed for another term, his deputies must also be reappointed in order to continue them in office." Hord, 79 N.E. at 922 (<HOLDING>). Our court concluded in Roberts that, because
holding that where state attorney general files suit on behalf of a specified group of individuals that suit qualifies as a de facto class action and the statute of limitations is tolled during the period in which the individuals are participants in the attorney generals suit holding that delegation of attorney regulation to judiciary did not prevent attorney generals prosecution of law for engaging in fraudulent business practices holding attorney general could not contract on behalf of the state to employ an assistant attorney beyond the attorney generals own term holding there is no constitutional right to an attorney much less an effective attorney in state postconviction proceedings holding under section 1420 district attorney lacks authority to appoint deputy attorney general as an assistant prosecutor in a drug possession case