The independent. [volume] (Oskaloosa, Kan.) 1860-1874, 1865-07-22
That Fee Bill Explained.

in open cour. explained his connection
with the same. He signed the order
supposirg i, 10 be schedule of prices
for the guidance of the Clerk of the
0istric. Court in making up the costs
in the Several cases, and not an order
'ou the County Clerk etc. As usual in
such cases, lie signed the bill on The
statement of the attorney that il was
correct; but said he ought 10 have TX
amined it, anu frankly shouldered his
par, OF the responsibility: ordered the
Attorney TO return three hundred dol
lars Of the scrip 10 Tie County, (all bu,
the $40 grand jury fees and that
in all cases costs should follow suits, as
has been the custom always. A ruling
Of this kind was required because of
the apparent conflict between the law
regulating fees and the Que providing
for County Attorneys.
Judge Giichrisi me, the case fairly
and promptly. and most honorably ac
quilted himself in The premises. show
ing up riyhrn IS aud integrity of char
acter,as well as manly independence.
Judge Spalding made out the b;.l in
accordance with tie provision of the
law governing County Attorneys, and
supposed he was all right, and that the
District Judge undersloodit. The Law
is very severe on The attorney for taking
pay in asy other manner than provided.
This difference of views grew naturally
out of the conflicting laws. and attaches
blame TO nobody.
The bill itself. The fees were for
the suits in the cica cases following The
forfeiture Of recognizance, and not on
the crasainai prosecutions. Here is The
complication which gives The double
dealing appearance 10 the mater. there
are two atiorneys-Districl and County
and in these cases the former prose
cuted the criminal. the latter the civil
suits, the parties being the same in each.
and all the cases disposed Of in lbe same
way. or nearly so. The District At
tornev takes the fees In the criminal
tiials, The Couuty Attorney in The civil
suits. Hence, there are two sets Of fees.
Alter hearing Judge Spalding's ex
PLANTATION, VIC fully exonorate him from
all design to defraud in presenting the
bill. As he understood the matter this
was his only chance to &c, his pay.
He says he intends to walk The straight
line of duty, and desires that his official
conduct be strictly scruiinized.
There is some misunderstanding be-
tween him and parties TO some OF the
suits, which they can probably recon
Gle when they get together. That is
for them TO look after, SO i, does not
affect the official position of The Judge,
WHO claims that he ha. followed the
strict letter Of The law Ia the whole Of
this mater.
Tb. case OF the State VS. Crone i.
involved 10 mist. In this case Judge
5. was attorney for the defense in the
criminal suit. Al that he received. he
AYERS. was his fee Ia the case s, %, 90
If there was anything wrong he kucw
nothing of it. Mr.. Grayson says he
paid $4,000 10 get clear OF the matter
(Iie was security on Tie bond, and ap-
peared as such. Who received the
$4,000? II it was a compromise ar
rangement on the bond, the money
should be paid into the County trea-
sury. AS counsel for the defendant in
the case. if Judge S. could get good
settlement for his client, it was all right
On his part. Any attorney would do
the same. But an explanation is need
ed IN this case. from some one.
A word as TO fees. Here are ten
cases. The District Attorney prose-
cuses and gets $50 10 each case, assess
Cd With The costs. The County Auor-
'sy enters sui; on the bond. and gels
sSo in each case. making $50 case.
eeoo,Oo Tor the ten cases. attorney
'eesl That is certainly pretty steep !!
FOR oil practical purposes these cases
are one. and $50 in each case is. aver
aging them all. ample fee for the whole
ming and this sum should be equi,ably
's.aed between the attorneys. The
es'i suits. in these ten cases. were pro.
badly all disnos.d ~