The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1877-09-18

to prepare his application for a con
tinuance.
Several prisoners were brought from
Jail and counsel for them appointed by
the court.
County Court
Atlas Works VS.. Giddens Il Sons
Judgment as per agreement.
r. w. Riddle vs. John Hall and
others, instituted for back rents. This
case consumed the better portion OF
the day. Three witnesses were on the
stand yesterday, and as there is thir-
teen more to be examined, the suit
will probably not be concluded until
Wednesday.
Recorders Court.
The docket was quite full at this
court yesterday, the majority of the
cases coming from the calaboose,
Eleven were disposed of in various
manners, according to the judgment Of
the court. There were also, a jury
trial or two.
Justice Mcclure.
State VS.. Bill Mynott, charged with
using indecent language and disorderly
Conduct. Fined ten dollars and costs.
Defendant gave notice of appeal.
Justice Peak.
Considerable interest was taken yes
day in the case of A. II. Sheppard W..
G. n. Aldridge, argued before Justice
Peak. Aldridge is the county attorney,
and the suit was brought by Sheppard
for the recovery OF fee which Aid
ridge received as county attorney where
the party plaintitfpleaded guilty of the
offence In the absence of the county at
torney and where his services were not
rendered in said cause. The magis-
trate in assessing the fine and costs, as
required in such cases, added to the
bill of costs the county attorneys fee,
ten dollars, and collected the same as
part of the cost in the case. There.
fore The suit for the recovery of said
fee as illegal. The plaintiffs attor-
MES, j. G. Kearby and Robert b.
Seay, advocated strongly and ably
against the collection CT county attOr-
ney's fee in such cases, iDasmuch as
the two acts OF the legislature, both
passed at the same session and both
touching the same point, but not In
conflict, were, therefore, both in force,
and maintaining that the county at
torney was not entitled to his fee, ex-
cept when services are rendered.
Judge Barksdale and Captain j. Nj.
Hurt appeared for the defense, aud adj
vocated with force and ability that the
county attorney was entitled to his
fee In all misdemeanOr cases, whether
services were rendered or not, holding
that the last act of the legislat ure, al
though passed at the same session,
repealed the prior act, 80 far as it diff
fered with the first act.
The acts passed by the Legislature
are appended below.
Act first, approved August Z, 1876,
reads as follows:
"Section 10. The county attorney
shall be entitled to the following fees,
and no other, viz: In all cases of mis-
demeanor, where the defendant is pros
ecufed by the county attorney, and Is
aud no appeal IL taken; OF
when, upon al peal, the judgment or
sentence Is confirmed, ten dollars, to
be pai by defendant as other costs"
The subsequent act, which was ap-
proved on the twenty-third of August,
1875, reads as follows:
"Section Z. The county attorneys
shall be entitled to the following lees
and no Others, to-wit: For every con
yiction under the laws against gaming,
where no appeal is taken, or when on
appeal the Judgment Is affirmed, nj
teen dollars, to he paid by the defend
ant az other costs. In all other cases
of misdemeanor IChere he defendant IS
conUicted and no appeal IL taken, or
where appeal upon the Judment Il
affirmed, ten dollars, to te paid by the
defendant as other costs"
The above are the two acts Of the
legislature passed at the same session,
only sixteen days apart, and the reader
will see the difference In the two acts.
We might add that at the bottom Of
the last act, August q. 1875, is re-
pealing clause, repeating all previous
acts in conflict The question IL, are
they in conflict, ana does the last act
Iepeal the former I? This was I e bone
of contention between the learned
counsel. Decision reserved.