Case ID: ala_136/html/0185-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      SHARPE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ellis v. Miller, Treasurer, &c. et al.
    
    
      Action upon Bond of County Treasurer.
    
    1. Constitutional law; act'providing for payment of witness fees in Walker eounty constitutional. — The act approved December 7, 1900, entitled “An act to authorize and require the commissioners court of Walker county to set apa^t and appropriate money from the general fund of said county with which to pay and discharge certificates of State witnesses hereafter issued by the foreman of the grand jury and by the clerk of the circuit iox county court of said county,” etc. (Acts of 1900-1901, p. 154;, is not unconstitutional and void as being vio-lative -of section 2, Article IV of the Constitution of 1875, which was in force at the time of its passage.
    Appeal from the Law and Equity Court of Walker County.
    Tried before the lion. Pioxton Nokvbll.
    This action was brought by the appellant, Richard M. Ellis, against the appellee, E. W. Miller, as treasurer of the county of Walker, and tbe sureties on bis official bond. Tbe purpose of tbe suit is sufficiently stated in tbe opinion.
    Tbe act of tbe legislature under wbicb' recovery is sought in this case was set out in extenso in tbe complaint, and several breaches by tbe defendant Miller in failing to pay certain witness fees upon presentation is alleged in tbe complaint.
    Tbe defendant demurred to tbe complaint upon several grounds, tbe principal ground being that tbe act of tbe legislature was unconstitutional for two reasons: (1) Tbe body of tbe act does not conform to its caption, in that tbe caption provides for tbe payment of fees wbicb are charges against tbe .fine and forfeiture fund of said county, while tbe body of tbe act provides for tbe payment of all State witness claims whether they are chargeable against tbe fine and forfeiture fund or not; (2) tbe caption of tbe act expresses two subjects.
    Tbe court sustained tbe demurrer interposed by tbe defendant to tbe complaint, and tbe plaintiff, declining to plead further, judgment was rendered for tbe defendant. From this judgment tbe plaintiff appeals, and assigns as error tbe ruling of tbe court in sustaining tbe demurrer to tbe complaint.
    Davis & Ray, for appellant,
    cited Constitution of 1875, Article IV, § 2; Ballentyne v. Wichersham, 75 Ala. 533; State v. Hartford, Ins. Go., 99 Ala. 225; Fox v. McDonald, 101 Ala. 52; Ex pa/rte Pollard, 40 Ala. 95; Scruggs v. State, 111.Ala. 60.
    Coleman & Bankhead, contra.
    
    If tbe caption of an act expresses two minor subjects it is unconstitutional, although a subject could have been selected broad enough to cover both subjects. — Ballentyne v. Wichersham, 75 Ala. 64.
    Where two subjects are expresed in tbe title and both are embraced in tbe body of tbe act, tbe whole act must be treated as void. — B. & P. Supply Go. v. Lucas, 119 Ala. 202.
   SHARPE, J.

-Tins Avas an action on the bond of the county treasurer, the breach being a failure or refusal of that officer to pay fees of certain witnesses according to the provisions of an act approved December 7th, 1900 (Acts, 1900-1901, p. 154), entitled “An act to authorize and require, the commissioners’ court of Walker county to set apart and appropriate money from the general fund of said county with Avhicli to pay and discharge certificates of State Avitnesses hereafter issued by the foreman of the grand jury and by the clerk of the circuit or county court of said county, fees Avhich by law become a good claim against the fine and forfeiture fund of said county, aftcir the approval of this act and to regulate the manner of said payments and to fix the amount of said witness fees.”

As appears from the argument and briefs of counsel, plaintiff’s right to maintain the action under his complaint as amended is not seriously questioned by defendants except upon the supposition that the act referred to is offensive to section 2 of article IY of the constitution of 1875. We are of the opinion that the act does not so offend the constitution and that the demurrer to the complaint Avas improperly sustained. The general purpose of tlie act is to make provision for the payment of persons who may attend as Avitneses in behalf of the State in criminal cases. The fixing of the fees to be paid such witnesses as well as the several provisions made for the creation of a fund with which to pay them are each cognate to and within the scope of that general purpose. Fees which accrue to Avitneses attending the grand jury may under the general law become a good claim against the fine and forfeiture fund. — Scruggs v. State, 111 Ala. 63. Hence such fees as well as fees accruing to Avitnesses attending for the State in the trial of criminal cases are comprehended in the caption of the act.

The judgment Avill he reversed and the cause remanded.