The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-09-19
Policemen and witness. Fees.

The matter OF the claim OF Policeman
Clinton Depriest against Police-Justice
| White, that the latter should allow him fees
for attendance as witness for the COM
monwealth in case tried in the Police
Cour;, was heard yesterday morning By
Judge Christian, OF the Hastings Court-Slr.
E. e. ellrepresenting the petitioner, and
Mr. w. W. Cosby the Commonwealth. The
answer OF Justice White was as follows:
10 Hon. George l.. Christian, Judge Of the
Hastings Court Of The Etyof Richmond:
The answer OF Joseph J. White, Police
Justice OF said city, to rule .'to show
cause, ii any he can. why the Common
wealth's writ OF peremptory mandamus
should not be awarded, commanding him
to issue>a certificate to Clinton Depriest
OF his attendance before the Police CoNrt
OF the city OF Richmond rs d witness for
the Commonwealth against Conclla Il Bro
ther, and to tax the amount Of said attend
apce as costs in said case"
This respondent. for answer thereto,
saith:
hold that no person is entitled to attend
ance.fees as witness who is not duly
summoned or recognized" to appear in
court (see new Criminal Code, chapter 10,
section ~, and the law does not apply to po-
Iicemen who attend court in consequence OF
arrests or reports made by themselves. 1t is
their duty to attend. without "summons or
| recogniZancc." In the case OF Conella II
Brother, Clinton Deprlest, policeman,
| while in the discharge OF his duty, became
cogniZant OF violation OF the "Sabbath
laws" and made complaint thereof TO JUS
tice OF the peace, who, upon said COM
plant. issued summons commanding said
| u hne tp 1,,t1 tl,n ID
lice Court for said offence. \ police con-
stable executed said process: and in the
discharge Of his duty the said Clinton De-
priest appeared in court to sustain the ale
cations in his complaint. He appeared, in
INV opinion, as an informcr or prosecutor
and not as summoned witness, and is
therefore not emitted to attendance-fees.
His time and services belong to the city oi
Richmond, which fully compensates hin
by salary.
The design OF the law plainly is to com
pcnsate citizen for the withdrawal from
mis- customary business, which attendance II
court rs witness eXacts. But this Is tli'
very business OF policeman. His attend
ance in court necessarily follows an arrcs
or report made by him in order that th'
calise Of arrest or report NAV be stated o.
made known and the accused confronted
with his accuser."
The attendance Of the policeman as wit
ness does not interfere with his business o.
his gains, for he is paid for such services
Nor should attendance-fees be allowed po
licemcn for other reasons
lst 1t would tend to the decentralization
OF the police force.
I'd. 1t would tend to make them stirrcrs
up Of strife.
Sd. 1t would tend to make them report
ers of pretended offences; and for the SAKE
OF receiving attendance-iecs many OF then
would, by arrests or reports for trivial OF
fences, be withdrawn from their duty IL
bcatsmen. and become habitues OF the Po
lice Court.
Whether policemen attend the Police
Court as niormers, reporters, or witnesses
thcv do so because oil their Office or employ
ment as policemen, and for that and al
other police services rendered by then
they receive regular salary and compen
sation from the city Of Richmond.
And having answered, your responder
pray that he may be hence discharged, DC
j. J. WHITE, Police Justice.
The replication OF the petitioner, by
counsel. WAS to the effect that Policeman
Dcpricst was summoned. and proved b,
Sergeant Seal that he lad notified Dcprics
TO attend.
After argument, the Judge held the mat
ter under adriScmcnt.