Case ID: tenn_37/html/0620-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McKinney, J.’,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State vs. James White.
    1. Criminal Law. Constable. Acts of 1835, ch. 17, § 9. It is not an indictable offense for a constable to fail or neglect 'to return a warrant before some justice of the peace residing in the same civil district with defendant, or some justice residing nearer the defendant in an adjoining district, as required by the act of 1835, ch. 17, <i 9; whatever may be the motive of said constable for such failure.
    2. Clerk. Costs. Imperfect transcript. Acts of 1841, ch. 57, § 1; 1842, ch. 129, 2; and 1852, eh. 256, g 6. The several acts of Assembly which forbid the allowance of any costs to clerks of inferior Courts upon transcripts which are imperfectly made out in cases brough t into the Supreme Court are imperative in their provisions, and of great practical importance, and should be rigidly enforced.
    EROM ANDERSON.
    Tbe defendant, a constable of Anderson county, was indicted in tbe Circuit Court of said county for “wilfully, unlawfully, and corruptly,” returning a warrant in trespass, contrary to the requirements of the act of 1835, ch. 17, § 9. At the July Term, 1858, Judge PatteR-SON gave judgment quashing the indictment, from which Attorney General McAdoo appealed in error. The transcript of the record" being made out imperfectly, a motion was made in this Court for an order disallowing any fees to the clerk of said Circuit Court for the same.
    J. B. Heiskeld, for the State.
    -for the defendant.
   McKinney, J.’,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The presentment in this case, charges that the defendant, as constable, wilfully, unlawfully, and corruptly violated his duty, in not returning a warrant issued by a justice of the peace, in trespass, and placed in the hands of the defendant for service, before the justice of the proper civil district, for trial, as required by the act of 1835, ch. 17, sec. 9. The Circuit Court quashed the presentment. In this, there is no error. We are aware of no principle, either of the common or statute law of this State, which makes the act in question a-criminal offense. Whether it would not he the ground of a civil action, is a question not before us.

But a collateral question is submitted by the Attorney General. The transcript sent up to this Court, by the clerk of the Circuit Court, has no caption whatever; nor is there a MU of costs accompanying it; and for these omissions, we are asked to direct that no fees shall be allowed for said transcript.

The act of 1842, ch. 129, sec. 2, directs, that when an “imperfect or incorrect, transcript” shall be sent up to the Supreme Court, the clerk of the Court by whom the same was made out and sent, “shall not be entitled to any fees for the same.” And the act of 1852, ch. 256, sec. 6, provides, that for the neglect or omission of the clerk to perform his duty in sending up a perfect transcript, in criminal cases, he shall forfeit all costs to which he would have been entitled.

And by the act of 1841, ch, 57, sec. 1, it is made the positive duty- of the clerk, in all cases of appeal to the Supreme Court, from either the Circuit or Chancery Court, “ to make out a complete bill of costs in the cause in which the appeal shall be taken, which bill of costs shall accompany the record” sent up to the Supreme Court.

These several provisions are of much practical importance, and must’ be rigidly enforced. In future no .fees or costs will be allowed to any clerk whose transcript may fall within either of said provisions. And the clerk of this Court will see to it, that there shall be no evasion of the law upon this subject.

Motion allowed.