The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1865-05-27
.ttapa cfrtt Grab,r .
D1DOrfont Case for supervisors
and Circuft Clerks.

and Circuit Clerks.
4 case has just been decided in the Su-
prsne Court at Ottawa, involving the proper
construction of the act of the last Legislature
requiring the Circuit and County clerks
throughout the state 10 index their records
The case was that of Whiting ct al. VI On.
ssas, brought on writ Of error from the Cook
Circuit NCsurt. The case was one OF no i'm.
portancs except As involving the act In ques.
taon. It was dismissed in the Circuit Court
as PLAINTIFF cost, and the costs having been
taxed by the clerk, plaintiffs objected to the
taxation, and moved the court for re.taxa.
ZION Of the same. The Court denied the
motion, on which the plaintiff took the case
up to the Supreme court.
The items charged in the bill of costs were
the usual ones in suits at law, except the fol-
lowing, to which only plaintiffs objected
Bnsg no. andtitie Of case. kind Of action term
Enss bsok and Peg. of judgmsni term when disposed
and date 81 judgt as one entry in plns index, 10
E. :ns Of ss oe. dG n s
Eng book and age Of en docket, in rlGs index, IL
xnf'g satisfaction, in I'lfs i.dex, 10
The same items were alSe charged as ode
fsndsnts COSTS, al the Law requires two
brooks to be kept, one plaintiffs and the
other defendants index.
These items viii IL recognized as claimed
under the statute referred to for indexing the
suit.
The plaintiffs make two points in the case
First, that the law, which requires two books
to be kept. and mentions Is items to be In
dexed in each case, in each book, and then
gives the clerk "ten cents for such (not each)
entry" the clerk can only cbarg. ten cents
for the entry in each book-making his entire
fees 20 cts. in each case. Second, as the law
requires this fee to be paid by the parties to
the suit" thus requiring each party to pay
certain costs whether he gain or lose his case,
the plaintiffs contend that the ac: is uncun-
stitutional, (a.) rs impairing the obligation
Of contracts uuIer the federal constitution,
leo .npelling a man Who sues on a contract
AID RECEIVERS, to accept, by the amount of
these costs, less than his contract calls for
. and o. as violating sec. II Of our Bill of
Rights, which SAYS that every person in the
State ought to find a remedy at law fer ia
juries, &c, "freely, and without being obliged
to purchase it
The defendants cOsstend for two contruc-
tons of the law-frst, as to the Cases OF the
last seven years already disposed Of, and
second, as to cases since the law has gone
into force. As to the former, they admit that
the entry Of the Is items, (mors or less, in
each book, constitutes but single entity for
each book but in causes to be indexed as
they progress, the entries must be made at
the times and in the order of the particular
steps in the suit requiring them, and each of
chem is thus a seperate and independent
entry. A proper construction of the law in
the latter case then would be, that the express
sion "such entry" means an entry only OF
such facts as pertain to the proceeding des-
cribed at that time, whether one or more
items.) and it is not to be supposed that the
clerk is bound to make sic entries, las ia
this case,) a, as many distinct times. all for
!. the fee of ten cents.
TIE Supreme Cart has "reverssd::snl re-
manded the decision Of the court below re
fasing to order the costs to be re-taxed but
on what ground, whether of unconstitution-
atty or the other point made by plaintiffs CIV
are unable to say, as no opinio has yet been
fled in the case.