Arizona citizen., 1877-01-13
TIE CITIZEN.
SATURDAY, JANUARY Is. 1877
Suit Against Pima Countx.

s. W. Carpenter, County Recorder. ys. the County Of Pima.
 s. W. Carpenter, Recorder Of this county,
 brought suit against the County Of Pima in justice court, before Justice Joseph Neu- gass, to secure sl99. 90 fees for the taking and filing Of affidavits Of electors, and for
 placing their names upon the great regis
 ter. L. c. Hughes appeared for plaintiff, and Briggs Goodrich, District Attorney, for defendant.
 After proving the account on file by
 plaintiff, and the disallowance Of said ac- count by the Board of Supervisors, counsel for defendant moved for a non-sult upon the ground that the fees claimed by plain tiff upon which the action is based, Is not a legal charge against defendant, and that the only compensation Of said County Recorder for such services as provided and more.
 The Court denied the motion for a non- suit, and gave its reasons as follows:
 l. In my judgment I do not consider that the spirit of the act Of 1875 excludes the County Recorder from receiving and demanding more than I5 cents for all the work and labor devolved on him in per fecting the registration of a name. Section four Of said act prescrlbes the duties of the Recorder fin placing & name upon the great register. as to name. date, etc.
 This section taken in connection with section 26 of said act, in my judgment, shows exactly what constitutes the enter ing name upon the great register and for such entering the law prescribes that heI shall receive the fee Of l5 cents from the county, but the statute simply limits the fee to the mere entering or placing the names upon the register, and does not say that he shall receive no more. But in the meantime 1t goes on and prescribes other duties for such County Recorder, such as the tskingof affidavits and filing them in his office. It certainly seems to me that the Legislature did not intend to deprive the Recorder from receiving the fee allow ed by law, when any justice Of the peace, notary public, or any oi her officer entitled to administer osths might take the very same affidavits and receive his fee therefor If such were the case the Legislature is sting between persons which 1t very seldom does and certainly in my opinion does not in this case.
 Q In my judgment section 26 of said act Is merely a limitation Of fees for a partic- ular act performed, and this limitation was especially necessary since no fee had heretofore been prescribed for the act and The duty of placing a name on the great register. If s registry act had heretofore been passed and the same fee of placing a name upon the great register had been pre- scribed and the act Of 1875 was merely to the prior act. then no fee need be prescrri ed without the Legislature desire tO raise or lessen it. There fore sec ton 26 prescribing c fee of IS cents for placing s name upon the great register being merely a limitation of the fee for that particular act, H leaves the acts pre- ' scribed in section 5, namely, inc taking of affidavits, and fin section II, namely, the | fling of all sridavits subject entirely to I the fees prescribed for these particular , acts. The motion for non-suit is therefore denied.
 No evidence being introduced on behalf of defendant. judgment was entered in | favor of plaintiff for his demand and costs ol suit.
 Counsel for defendant appealed to the district court.