Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-04-15
CRIMINAL COSTS.
The Comptroller Makes a Ruling in
Regard TO Clerks Fees-A Practical
Bearing Given to a Decision OF the
Supreme Court.

The Comptroller Makes n Ruling in
Regard to Clerks Fees-A Practical
Bearing Given to a Decision OF the
Supreme Court.
In s~crutinizing bills of costs certified for
payment by a number Of Criminal Court
Clerks recently, Comptroller Gaines has
thought proper to reject certain items as
not allowable under the statute regulating
clerks fees. With the view Of removing
the general misconception, which he thinks
prevails in regard to such disallOWed fees,
he intends forwarding to the various Grim
inai Court Clerks a copy of the opinion Of
the Supreme Court, delivered by Justice
Mcfarland during the last term at Jackson,
in the case of w. T. Avery, Criminal
Court Clerk Of Shelby, against the State.
This opinion, covering the ComptrOller's
decision, has Just been obtained, and, as
his ruling must awaken a desire to know
something Of it, we present the following
abstract:
a defendent was bound over to appear
at court BY a magistrate, to answer for a
felony. The case was dismissed and judg-
ment entered against the State for its own
costs. Several questions were presented to
the Supreme Court:
1. The clerk charged a fee of rs cents for
filing the magistrates papers, and this was
stricken ont by the judge. There was no
error in the striking out.
2. The clerk charged a fee of 10 cents for
dOcketing the warrant. II does not appear,
say the judges, that the clerk is required
TO keep such a docket or allowed any fee
for doing 50.
3. As 20 the question whether the State
or county is chargeable with the costs Of
Subpasnas issued for defendants witnesses
in those cases where the State or county
is ~adiudged to pay the States costs, the
Court is Of the opinion that such ccsts were
defendants costs and not costs accrued in
behalf Of the State, aud, therefore, properly
stricken out.
4. One of the cases in the record was q
case Of acquittal. The judgment was
sthat the defendant 20 hence and that the
clerk certify the costs herein to the Comp
tTolier of the Treasury for payment.
This. saws the opinion, might be construed
to mean all the costs-the defendants as
well as the States, as the usual order is
that the clerk certify the costs accrued IN
behalf Of the state; but we DO not think
the court intended TO give judgment
a-dlLLSL GLlE CLlALC AOl Tic uCACAAAauL N1oA0f
but simply to order costs certified for pay
ment~ according to law, which would be
only the States costs.
3. One case was disposed Of by the fol-
lowing entry: "In this case, on motion
and for satisfactory reasons appearing to
the court, it IS orderedtha the above war
rant be dismissed and the defendant dis
charged; and that the State Of Tennessee
paw the costs in this behalf accrued and
that the Clerk Of this court make out and
certify the same to the Comptroller Of the
Treasury for payment" Under sub-sec-
ton y, section 4551 ofthe Code, the Clerk
charged, for judgment for costs, twenty-five
cents; under subsection 10, for motion
and order to dismiss, twenty-five cents, and
for order to certify, twenty-five cents. The
last two items were stricken out and the
first allowed.
The Judge, continues the opinion, was
correct. The clerk cannot charge for three
motions or three orders, because thres
things are directed to be done in the
order.
6. Similar fees were claimed and refused
in other cases, to wit: Where the cause
was placed on the retired docket,
where a nOlle prOsequi and verdict Of not
guilty were entered-all Of which, says the
Supreme Court, were properly disallowed.