The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-09-23

On SATURDAY Judge GeOTSc u. Cui iaL'aH,
OF the Hastings Court Of Richmond, rem.
dered his decision in the case OF Depriest
against Police-Justice White, winch was
made up to ascertain whether or no pollce'
men can claim fees for attendance as wit
nesses. The duties of the police were care
fully considered by the Judge, and what lie
remarks on that point, as well as on the
main question, is interesting. He said:
This is an application by the relator Tor Z
writ of n,dnddmus against the respondent
to compel him tc issue to the relator certl.
ficate directed to the treasurer OF the city OF
Richmond requiring said treasurer to pay
him the sum authorized by law for bis
attendance as q witness on behalf OF the
Commonwealth in the case Of the Common
wealth Us. Conella Il Brother.
The usual rule was awarded, and the re-
snondent filed his answer. in which several
grounds are set forth why the writ. as
prayed for ,-should not be granted. They
are
1st. That the relator was not duly "sum'
moned or recosniZed,' and that only sucsl
witnesses as are summoned or recognized
are entitled to certificates OF allowance.
I'd. That the law allowing fees to wit
nesscs "does not apply TO policemen who
attend court in consequence Of arrests OF
! reports Lut!Nc ny
80. That such allowances to policemen
would "tend to the decentralization Of the
police force" make them
sTIRIERs.UP OF STRIFE"
reporters OF pretended offences; and, for
the sake Of receiving attendancc-iecs, many
OF them would, by arrests OF reports OF frl-
vial offences, be withdrawn from their duty
is beatsmen, and become haJttueS OF the
Police Court"
4th. That "whether policemen attend the
Police Court as informcrs, reporters, Or
witnesses, they do 50 because OF their Office
or employment az policemen, and for that
and all other police services rendered by
them they receive regular salary and COM
prnsation from the city OF Richmond"
in regard to the first cause assigned in the
answer, that the relator was not "summoncd
| or recogniZed," this was traYelsed by his
replication. and lie introduced witness IA
sergeant of the police who testified that,
| although he had no regular Subpoend for the
| rclator his name was endorsed on the sum-
mons against the defendants, and that by
virtue OF this alone he did summon him.
The attorney representing the Common
wealth and the respondent rests the case al
most solely on this ground. contendlng that
this does not constitute Il summons" in
contemplation Of law, and that inasrnuch as
THE WITNESS WAS NOT SUMMONED"
in the mode prescribed by law, that fact
alone is decisive OF this case, and that the
nraver Of the rclator should not therefore
be granted.
1t was held in DeBeTaerMe Us. De eBenne-
riNe. Bin., 46, that " in civil cases wit
ness is entitled 10 pay, il summoned, though
not examined, and so, il examined, though
not summored," and, us far as know, this
has been the rule OF practice in Virginia in
both civil and criminal cases. Bot appre-
hcnd that Il decision based on this point
alone would be too narrow and technical TO
snbscrye the purposes for which this pro-
ceeding was instituted, which was. am in
| formed, to test the question raised by the
second cause assigned in the answer OF the
| respondent-viz. that the law allowing fees
TO witnesses does not apply TO "poiccmen
who attend court in consequence OF arrests
or reports made by themselves" There
fore, without deciding the questions raised
| BIZ the first assignment Of the respondent. l.
will consider the whole case on the question
raised by him in the second, which, in the
view that l take of that question, will he
decisive OF this case.
The respondent states in his answer that
| in this case the relator, ga policeman, while
in the discharge OF his duty, became cog
infant Of violation OF the
SABBATH LAWS,
and made complaint thereof to a JUS
tice of the peace, who, upon said
complaint, issued summons command
| ing said Couella & Brother to answer
before the Police Justice for said offence
| This statement is not denied by the replica-
| ton, and must therefore be taken as true by
the Court.-Pdge Us. C9opt0n, JNdge ;
September No. Virginia Laao Journal.
Are policemen, then, who attend court
in consequence OF arrests or reports made
by themselves, entitled 10 fees as lCitNcSseS
for the Commonwealth?
The system OF police is one Of great an
| tiGuity. 1t existed in the ancient cities OF
Greece; and while but little is known OF
| the nature OF the system in ancient times,
| it has existed substantially as it does with
lis, for several centuries, both in England
| and France, and the accepted definitions OF
| the term, as laid down by two standard
works in England and Americp, are-!irst,
"A civil force organized in connection
! with The judicial and executive system OF Il
State or city for the preservation OF order
and the. enforcement Of the lawS"; and
secondly, "constables Or peace-oflicers ap-
pointed in all parts OF town or country for
| the purpose Of watching property and de-
tecting crime, arresting offenders and main
tanning public ORDER"
| Policemen, then, are the
AGENTS AND OFFICERS OF TIE LAW,
appointed and paid to aid the judicial and
executive departments OF the city and State
"in the preservation of order and enforce
ments OF the laws" They ale " "cOnStables
and peace. officers" appointed and paid for
the purpose OF watching property and de-
tecting crime" They are a part of the ma
chinery of the law, and occupy that relation
to the other departments thereof that caval-
~ does to an army; they are its "eyes and
ears" Their duties are not confined simply
to detecting crime, but they have not dis
charged their duties as policemen until the
offender is ''brought to JUSTICE" and in
many cases this can only be done by the
policeman appearing in the court and testl-
tying of what he was paid TO see as the
guardian OF law and order. l think, then,
upon principle, it is as much the duty OF q
policeman to attend the Police Court ia con-
sequence OF arrests or reports made by MN
as il is to make such arrests or reports; that
he does all simply in the discharge OF ms
daty as policeman, Tor which he is already
paid by the city, and that he is not mere
aoitneSS for the Commonwealth, and is there
fore not entitled to fees rs such. But il
there was any doubt about this, as gene
raj proposition, 1 think an examination Of
the
ORDINANCES AND POLICE REGULATIONS
Of this city would dispel that doubt in this
case Section II Of chapter 81 OF the City
Ordinances edition of 1879 provides that
..the whole police force shalt endeavor to
prevent the commission OF offences in