Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1846-04-09

= Il
Rutland 0,l0G Franklin, OI66
Windsor, OI0s Llmoille, O377
Addison, Obs Orleans, C2O7
Orange, OILS Grand Isle, OH
Chittcnden, 0,l0 Essex OI57
the lowest rate of charge exhibited IN the above
table exceeds the Statute prIce for copying more,
than 200, and the highest more than 600 per cent.
This table we believe will iurnisha fair commonta-
ry upon the uncertainty Of iegal disrton, when
committed to a urge number OF different boards,
from whose allowance there is no appeal or revis-
ion. This is however not solitary or PERKINS, The
strongest case, Of discrcpnt practices resulting
necessarily, from the unfortunate condition of our
laws on Ibis subject
/ Since the revision in 1880, Clerks have charged
and have been allowed from 80 cents to 50 co and
over for rendering judgments, in addition to ~ cts
allowed by the Statute, for entering Judgment in
the Supreme Court, and 40 cents on trial in the
County court. Before the revision, the Statute,
settling the fees for catering judgments, had these
words Of explanation, viz, including rendering
the same" but in the Statute OF Ia 50 these words
are omitted, and the practice has become general
to charge for the record.
! Charges from 800 10 50 80 arc made for ma
king debenture OF the Grand Jury and the same
for Petit Jurors, and of : 0U to So for settling
with panel of Jurors. The services, for which
these fees are charged originated under a law OF
1907, and the fees prescribed by that act, as COM
pens ition for the service, SlC0 only. The du-
ty OF the Clerk was to mike the dcbenulre keep
the account of the Jury fees and settle with the
Jurors THIS was required by the Statute aud the
legal fec was Sl0O now by innovation or con-
stluctlOn, or usage, in some cases over $500 is
paid for this service. Nor is this all. Since the
act OF 1872 the Clerks are paid for this service in
another way, or this service Is included among 9th.
ers, for which another compensation is allowed and
still their charges continue to he made and in
some Counties, including Court Gc5 IRE amo n
F ing to about 80 90 above and beyond the provls-
ions OF the INV.
in about one third of the Counties it has been
customary to enter the returns of inqucsts of the
dead on The dockets Of the Courts, ut consdera-
Bile eXpers, to the State. This useless expense
has fallen lutte short Of 5000 Il year in some
counties. No possible reason can be given for
such practice, other than a means of adding to
the fees of certain officers and this reason has been
frankly assigned as the origin OF the practice.
Other practices have prevailed, of character
similar to those above descrb IT, all inyo vny loss
to the Treasury of probably over S}000,00 per
year, all of which would have been saved, by limit
ing allowances to the proportion 10 tees establish
ed by law" Capias, to apprehend criminals or
persons charged with offences against the laws,
have been generally charged ut 81 90 though some
times at 81 but If allowed at Il rate proportional
to fees established by law, the chlrge would prof.
ably be q cents, but certainly not over "a cents -
Venires for Jurors anu State Prison warrants are
charged at similar rates, and subject to similar
remarks.
The act of l2Trovided whn. was hoped would
prove remedy for these waste t Z ullic fund,
by reducing all to legal STANDARD. TINS provis.
ion was for the promulg itiOn of ru'fS applicable to
every variant practice. In February c4 |, the au-
dor applied to the Judges Of the Supreme Court
to establish rules of practice, to be obs4 we'd in all
the Courts of law in the State which should secure
the desired uniformity. Time and other circun!-
stances not avuring the application, it was deferred
till July following, when statement of the practi
ceS calling for the ntcrpositiOn OF Court with L