Case ID: ala_55/html/0166-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MANNING, J. —", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Williams v. The State.
    
      Indictment for Vagrancy.
    
    1. Judgment imposing additional hard labor for fine and costs. — When a fine is the only punishment imposed, and, the fine and costs not being paid presently, a sentence to hard labor is imposed by the court-, the term of labor for the fino is fixed by section 3760 of the Bevised Code, while section áOGl regulates the term for the unpaid costs.
    Ebom the City Court of Montgomery.
    Tried before the Hon. John A. MiNNis.
    The defendant in this case, Aaron Williams, was indicted for vagrancy; pleaded not guilty; was convicted, and fined ten dollars by the verdict of the jury; and the fine and costs not being paid or secured, the court sentenced him “ to perform hard labor for the county of Montgomery for ten days for the fine, and at the rate of ten cents per day for the costs until paid, making two hundred and forty-eight days hard labor for the costs, and two hundred and fifty-eight days in the aggregate.” The defendant objected to the latter part of this judgment, and it is the only matter here urged as error.
    Edwin E. Jones, for the defendant. —
    When the punishment imposed on conviction, whether by the court or the jury, is hard labor for the county, and an additional term of hard labor is imposed by the court to cover the unpaid costs, the duration of such additional term is regulated by section 4061 of the Revised Code. But, when a fine is the only punishment imposed, the term of additional hard labor which may be imposed is regulated by section 3760; and this covers both the fine and the costs. These two sections are in pari materia, and are to be construed as parts of one and the same statute. They were in fact adopted at the same time, being sections 213 and 511 of the Penal Code of 1866; and the amending act of Eebruary 16, 1867, only made the latter section apply to all costs, instead of “the costs of State witnesses and judge’s fees,” as it originally provided. This construction was virtually adopted in the case of Morgan v. The State, 47 Ala, 86, where the defendant paid the fine assessed against Mm, and was sentenced to liard labor for tbe unpaid costs under section 3760.
    JoHN W. A. Saotokd, Attorney-General, for tbe State.
   MANNING, J. —

While tbe different sections' of tbe Be-vised Code should be so construed as to make them, when it can be done, harmonize with one another, to bold that one section of it must be interpreted by reference to every other, with as much critical severity as if they were sections of a single ordinary statute, would be establishing too strict a rule on tbe subject. It is well known that many acts were passed after the adoption of tbe original Code of 1852, that were supplementary to, as well as many that were merely amend-atory of its provisions. Of tbe former sort was tbe act of tbe 16th of February, 1867, which is incorporated as section 4061 into the Bevised Code. Previously to that date, it bad been provided, as set forth in section 3760, that if a person, convicted of an offense, did not pay, or secure to be paid, tbe fine and costs which he was adjudged to pay, he might be imprisoned; and the duration of his imprisonment was to be determined by the amount of the fine as therein prescribed. By the statute embodied in section 4061, the unpaid costs were also to be considered in determining the length of time the convict should be sentenced to imprisonment or hard labor. One of these sections does not take the place of the other, as the entire enactment on the matter to which they relate, but the later one is supplementary to the earlier; and in Caldwell v. The State, at the present term, it has been held that section 4061 was not in violation of the constitution.

The judgment of the court below must be affirmed.