Case ID: scl_11/html/0639-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Hugeb, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

N. G. Cleary v. N. G. Wells.
    The Act of 1816, allowing to a juror one dollar per day for his services, has not repealed the part of the fee hill of 1791, allowing juries five shillings for every verdict.
    The jury have a right to retain the record on which they have found a verdict, until five shillings have been paid them.
    In this case the jury refused to deliver the record on which they had found a verdict for the plaintiff, until they were paid five shillings, the sum allowed for a verdict by the Fee Bill of 1791.
    The plaintiff contended that the Act of 1816, allowing to each juror one dollar per day for his services, had repealed that part of the Fee Bill of 1791, under which the jury claimed their fee.
    It was ruled by the presiding judge, in the Circuit Court, that the Act of 1816 had not repealed the Fee Bill of 1791, and he directed the plaintiff to pay the fee demanded by the jury.
    From this decision an appeal is now made on the following grounds :
    1. That the judge on the circuit had given an erroneous construction to the Act of 1816. And,
    2. That if the jury were entitled to the fee of five ^'shillings, they had [-*443 no right to retain the verdict until it was paid. <-
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Hugeb, J.

In the Act of 1791, the Legislature has fixed the fees of the different officers of the State, and has allowed to the jury for every verdict, five shillings. 1 Brev. Dig. 346. 1 Faust, 9.

In the year 1816, the Legislature declared, that the duties performed by jurors were unequal and burdensome, and enacted, that for each day’s service a juror shall be allowed one dollar out of the public treasury. There are no words in this Act expressly repealing the fee bill of 1791, and the provisions do not appear to be repugnant. The Legislature intended, by the Act of 1816, to increase the allowance of the juror, and not to lessen the costs of suit. In many cases, were the fee of five shillings for each verdict withheld from the jury, the per cliem compensation would not be an equivalent therefor. The Court is opinion that the Act of 1816 does not repeal the bill of 1791, and, therefore, the appeal from the Circuit Court cannot prevail on the first ground.

It has been the long established practice in this State for the juries to reclaim the verdicts after publication, and before they are recorded, to coerce the payment of their fees, and no inconvenience has hitherto been experienced from this practice. It very frequently happens,’ indeed, that the juries, trusting to the known honor of gentlemen of the bar, permit verdicts to be recorded before the fees are paid, and no jury is yet known to have suffered from this confidence. Should the jury, however, be disposed to retain the verdict until the fee be paid, the Court is of opinion they have a right to do so. On the second ground, therefore, the appeal must also fail.

The motion is dismissed.

HiCHARDson, Colcock, Nott, and JohnsoN, JJ., concurred. 
      
       5 Stat. 154.
     
      
       6 Stat. 28; subsequent Acts, 1824, 6 Stat. 238 — grand jurors; 1836, 6 Stat. 551 — increased to $1.50; 1844, 11 Stat. 295 — mileage allowed; 1845, 11 Stat. 347 — mileage repealed; 1858, 12 Stat. 740 — $1.50, and mileage.