Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1874-05-06

( The question, then, may be reduced to
q mere question of law, irrespective OF
motive. If he, not by mistake OF fact,
| but knowingly demanded aud received
| for his official services while attending
| the County Court greater sum than is
allowed by law, it will, in the light of the
| foregoing well recognized authorities, be
extortion. Then what is the law in
reference to the compensation of magis-
trates for the services performed2
Section 4549 says: The justices of
the peace in this State are allowed to
demand and receive for their services in
civil cases the following fees and none
other" Then follows an enumeration
of fees SUD section 33 of said section
1919 says; ITO the justices of the
Quorum such compensation as the court
may allow" We think under this sub.
section the magistrates Of the Quorum
Court are entitled to the sum of five dol
lars per day while serving in the County
Court, where and when it has been voted
to them. Section 4549 reads: "All
justices OF the peace of the State at.
tending Quarterly Courts of their re-
spective counties shall be entitled to
and receive tWo dollars per diem for
their attendance" This is the act
of lS66-67, CHI 3, l, the last on
the subject. 1t is true that the act does
notin express terms say they shall not
have more than two dollars per diem.
but is not this said by implication?
How easy, in express terms, to have al
lowed the County Court to FIX the pay
of the Quarterly, as it has done those of
the Quorum Court, lad it been intended
Section 45l7 of the code says No
officer is allowed to demand or receive
fees or other compensation for any SER
vices further than is expressly provided
by law" Again, in | Yerg, 26l, it is
declared no fees can be given by con-
struction to any officer; the statutes
must be followed here the statute says
tpo dollars, aud if it is to be followed it
would seem that only that sum can be
given, and that this statute cannot be
construed into allowing Eve dollars. If
it could, then why not say ten dollars,
or any other sum in the discretion OF the
Court2 We here recognize the maxim
that the expression of one thing is the
exclusion of another. We do not think
that the statute is so flexible. The
COUNTY Court is authorized to pay the
justices of the Quorum Court, code sub
section of section 42l5; and, also, we
have seen to fix the rate of such com
peusation subsection 80 of section 4549.
The County Court pays the justices sit
ting at the Quarterly Court, but the
State fixes the rate of compensation
code 1919. Now, if the County Court
can fix different rate of payment for
justices attending the Quarterly Court
than that prescribed in section 4549
by the State, then it may, with the
same propriety, change the pay
ment of juries, for in the same section
it is written that the jurors attending at
such (Courts) shall be entitled to, and
receive two dollars per diem for their
attendance. The same amount IS allow
ed Jurors attending any of the Courts of
this State, under Act of 1868, cb. Id,
81. But while the phraseology in the
allowances to Justices and jurors is the
same, no one will pretend that the
County Court has the power to increase
or diminish the compensation allowed
to jurors.
Hence we are constrained to conclude
that the magistrates, other than those
comprising the Quorum Court, are not
entitled to FIVE dollars per day while at
tending the Quarterly Courts, aud the
defendant being one of these, who it is
agreed demanded and received said sum
is, at least technically, guilty of extor.
ton. From the view we have taken of
this question, we less reluctantly come
to the conclusion, as it does not necessa-
rily involve any degree of moral turpi-
tude but may be simple misapprehen.
sion Of law. The past lives of many of
these defendants, their high character
and social standing negative the idea of
an actual criminal intent, or a corrupt
motive. But as in our judgment we
find the law, SO we must declare it.
ErIppTN JndOe etc