Daily Democrat and news. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1859-1864, 1860-11-05
Decision Of Judge Dillon ON the Fee
Case.
G. Ripley,
e. G. Ripley.


Ira. ii. Clifford, }Potiti N for
As Clerk of the District Court ManJalus.
OF scott county, Iowa
The precise question presented in this case
i, whether there is now IN force any law au
ihorizlng the C!-r OF the Dis,;ict Court to de-
rnand from the plaintiff. thing fee, the suri
Of 81 81, on the commencement Of an orlgina!
.uit il, III I Court The decision of this qu-s-
tion necessarily involves the determination
the br"eder one. whether Chapter 1856 cf the
Code of 1851, (Which il incorpnra'e ed into the
Revision ns Chapter los thereof is in force. or
whether It Is Re. called
To "a proper understanding Of the subject, 1t
is necessary to bs sta I'd that ch.pier l3o in
the old code 1881 after lrov,dins that no oiii
cer should be allowed fees or other co,Dpens :
lion further than i, expressly perm tie BY
iaw, (S-c 1924, Code 1851 went GA to provide
speciticaily what compensatinn the Secretary
OF state, Clerk Of Supreme aud District Courts.
County Judge. Record--. sheriff. Conorer, Con-
| stabIes Justices o! thu Peace etc, etc, shond
receive. and what tees they were sev-rally au-
| ,hor,z-d to charge. This chapter, viz. chap er
SO. was incIosed in part third OF the ode OF
1851. In the Report Of the Code Commission
| ers made to the last General Assembly, ohapter
l36 wac included. There MAS also included in
the report the general reiea!'ng sec ION, which
is now numbered III the Revision Of 1850. as
section 4lS7 to be more fully Loricei present.
w. 10 the Srnate before the passage of. he new
Code. which includes section Al 81 above chap
ter 1876 Of tn, Old Code was stricken out Of the
Code Commissioners Report. aud no moditica.
ton made Of til, repeating section above
alluded to.
This se ton (4lS7) 80 far as it is now mate
| RIA, to bs noticed. provides as 70 lows: ",kc
4 81. This Act includes mary sections Of part
third OF the Code Of |, wa Of 1851 .tc., e'c. -
Now it is intended that the portions OF part
third OF the q de aforesaid which ia incorpora-
ted into this act, shall be subs iiu'ed fr part
third OF the Code of 1851, and 10 that end
e., ry portion lard OF tn. Co % Of 1851
not set out he,.. ,..her II orally or by numer-
icsl ,'esignstion, is hereby vepeaed." etc. The
word herein .eans, as will be s--n by the ex
press AID explicit language en,po, I'd, the Il Ct
as is finally pas.ed and not the Report as pre-.
cen o.. Chapter 1856 oftne old Code 10 no. set
out either literally or by designation in the Act
as it passed, AMI therefore stands repealed, un-
,ess the presumed intention Of the Legislature
shail be held to overcome the express language
used
IL will also be noticed that the repeating Ian
guage Ia ear aud unambguous The whole
difficulty results from an omission to modify
the repeating section, after str,king cut OF
Chapter 1856 from the Report This omission
wac, doubtless, inadvertent " cannot reason
abb, be supposed that the Legislature intended
,o produce the confession which would inevita
bly, result IRON having no law defining what
fees public ctfic-rs might legally charge The
sheriff, for example, BY other portions Of the
statute Is required to execute process sell
rror erty on execution, etc and it is not to b.
hat / Ui-la int Id tha,
he .hould d" t'is watho"t compensation, or
withoutany fired and certain compensation.
Acts Of the General Assembly are ia " lting
and the original thereof are by law required to
kept in the Office Of the Secretary OF State
Printed copies are only prtma t.ieio evidences
and are laf.rior in dignity and value to the en-.
rolled copy.
Says the Supreme Court ofIowa: (Care
the State, s Iowa 5O9) TIL. Original Art t.
the Sec e'srys Office is the ultimate proof of the
iaw"
In the agreed stat ement Of facts in this case.
it is admitted that the enrolled copy. that ia,
the Origina! set. as approved ny the Governor
does not contain Chap er l62 as printed in ihe
REVISION of 1867, (that being the Chapter
v hlch provides for the Compensation of
Officers y but that the same was stricken out
of he report Of the revisors.
insertion Of it in he Revision Of 1860, BY the
r.v,sor, on his own motion. can have no
effect.
,h. question then recurs Which lie to IRE
vail The rtsume inttr,ion cftite L.g'si tnre
OF the clear a.u ositive language they have
usei to express Their in' eu,i1"g understand
Il eweI settled rule Of law 10 ne. that, whiie
Courts are governed IN the cans.rn.sion OF
-. uies hv the ith mtion Of the Legislature
yet here the terms OF Lh- act Ar plain ard
uuam",guous, Courts IN St judge OF 'hf intent
OF t. e LIE .,-ia,ure f:orB the .angu ge they have
us~L to express that ..eu,. the language 10
ri. ar ca Ii,cit aud su-crl title "t b, : Que mean
,ng aud there IL n.thlng i.conVruons IN the
Ct h~ G,ur, 10 bommI Ia sdpDos- the LeRis
s,urs intended ,chat their language imports
alker, Gu r 3s4. Nax,oeH '. COfiSs. lnd..
49,
In au h case no resort en- he had even to
u. till. or rea,D Dble = U. s. vs. F.sher, 2
C,.nch 1856. OHIO on y. So.
Wssn,' says WRiGaI. G j., IoSa, o.
276 ''ths ~ords used exllcit they re TO
z vsrn, OF cours. l. ""t r'siu. then oursa