Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1870-09-09
wALHALLA, SOUTH CAROLINA FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER o. 1870
OFFICE or THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Columbia, S. @.

CoiumDla, .. u.
~ H. Brawley, Esq, Solicitor S;rM CIR.
cuit, Chester c. H.:
My DEAR SIR: Yours of Juno 9th, rel
atiye to the liability of the county for the pay
Of jurors aud witnesses in Trial Justices
Courts, was duly received. I should have
replied at an earlier day but for the multi.
plicity Of my duties.
BY Section 2 of the "Act to amend an Act
entitled 'An Act to define the jurisdiction and
duties Of County Commissioners passed
March 27, 1869, page 273, Acts Reg Sess
lo0S-'G9, the county is required to pay: 1st
Fees of grand and petit jurors while in atten
dance upon tho Circuit Court I'd Witness
fees in State cases at the rate of Que dollar
per day for actual attendance on the Circuit
Court, and soventy-Gvc cents per day for ac.
tual attendance in magistrate or Justice of
the peace Court, and five cents per mile for
actual and necessary travel. The "Act to
regulate fees" &C., passed March l, 1870,
page 3os, Acts Of 1s69-'7o, fixes anew the
fees of witnesses and jurors.
referring to tho former act, it will be seen
that by section 2, paragraph l, the county
is not chargcable with tho fees of Jurors ex.
ccpt 'wllilc in attendance upon the Circuit
Court" The latter Act, moreover, merely
prcscrbcs the amount of the fee of Juror,
without in any manner cnlarging the scope
of section 2, paragraph I, of the former act.
conclude, therefore, that the county is not
chargcable with the fees of jurors in Trial
Justices Courts
Referring again to the Act of March 27,
lS69, it will be seen that the county is charge
able with the fees of witnesses in State cases
only when "in actual attendance on (1) the
Circuit Court, or (2) Magistrate or Justice
of the Peace Court" Technically, Trial
Justices Courts are neither "a Magistrate or
Justice of the Peace Court" but am dis
posed to think that tho description is suffic
lently accurate to apply to Trial Justices
Courts. Especially am inclined to tlis in.
depreciation when the hardship of compelling
"iI"cssca " uttcnu sucn courts without nav
is considered. | am, moreover, well awor,
that such construction is liable TO be abnsrd
TO the great detrimcnt of t'se county, but I
am also Of the opinion that any course on the
part of Trial Justice udicatino nurn,so
to summon witnesses in unnecessary numbers
or an intention to impose an improper burden
on the county, would be ground for proceed
lngs for official misconduct, and that the
County commissioners are in duty bound to
note and report to you any evidence of such
misconduct on the part Of any Trial Justice.
am, however, Of the opinion that the county
is chargeablc with the fees of witnesses in
Trial Justice Courts.
You inquire further, in case the county is
chargcablo with the fees of witnesses in Trial
Justices Courts, at what rate they Shall be
allowed?
By section, paragraph 1, of the Act of
March ~, 1869, the fee of witnesses in
Magistrate or Justice of the Peace Court is
fixed at scventyfve cents per day with mile.
age The Act of March l, 1870, before ci-
ted, simply prcscribes the fec Gin State
cases I"
My opinion, therefore, is that the dist,nc-
ton fixed by the Act of March 81, 1860, be.
tween the pay Of witnesses in the different
courts, is still Of force; and that the lawful
fee of witness in Trial Justices Court is
seventy.fvc cents per day with mileage.
Very Respectfully,
Your obedient servant.
ID. Fl. CHAMBERLAIN,