Case ID: tenn_91/html/0405-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Caldwell, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stout v. State.
    (Jackson.
    April 19, 1892.)
    Criminal Practice. Liability of counties for costs in felony cases.
    
    Chapter 22, Acts 1891 (Extra Session), providing that counties shall pay the costs in felony cases where they are disposed of without final trial, has no application to felony cases in which the indictment was found before the passage of the Act.
    Act construed: Acts 1891 (Ex. Sess.), Ch. 22.
    FROM WEAKLEY.
    Appeal in error from Circuit Court of Weakley County. W. H. Swiggárt, J.
    Charles M. Ewing for' Stout.
    Attorney-general Pickle for State.
   Caldwell, J.

On June 4, 1891, Sam Stout was indicted for larceny. In due course of time be was tried and convicted. Upon appeal in error to the present term of this Court, the judgment of the Circuit Court was, on a former day, reversed and a nolle prosequi entered by the State.

The case is now before us on the motion of the Attorney-general, and we .are asked to determine whether the State or the county shall pay the costs accrued on behalf of the State.

Under the Code (§ 5585, subsec. 2, and § 5586), they were taxable to the State, the offense charged being punishable “by confinement in the penitentiary.” By Secs. 1 and 2, Ch. 22, Acts 1891 (Extra Session), that provision of the Code was so amended and changed as to make the county liable for such costs in such a case. That act was passed and approved on September 19, 1891, and took effect “ from and after its passage.”

Which of the two statutes applies to this case, the indictment having been found before the passage of the amendatory Act, and the nolle prosequi having been entered afterward?

The intent of the Legislature does not very clearly appear. Yet, we are of opinion that the recent Act contemplates only such prosecutions as may be commenced after its passage,'and that cases then pending are not embraced within its provisions. This construction gives the Act prospective effect only. A different construction would render it retrospective, in part at least.

The costs in this case are, therefore, taxable under the Code provisions.