Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-06-22
A JUDICIAL opIsIoE.

! L will be remembered tba. on TIE DIST CT
March the examination of James Taylor and
John MehanrY, for the murder Of Michael
Moynihan some fourteen years ago, was com
menc.d in the Police Court. The Judge of
the Court appointed Albert johnson SIS stem
ogrspher, AMI he made ssenogrsphic report
of The testimony. Afterwsrd tie Board Of
Supervisors refused to allow his claim OF $50
/ for his services SIS stsnogrspher, and he
| brought suit against Sacramento county.
| Yesterday in bank TIE Judges OF the Supe-
rior Court agreed upon and tiled the ioilo"ias
opinion:
In the SUPERIOR Court, County of Sacramento,
State of California, sitting in bank. Albert n.
| johnson, plaintiff, vs.. County OF Sacramento, de-
/ PENDANT. This case is hereupon Appealed nom the
| Court Of J. c. Iubbs Justice OF the Peace. From
the admissions OF tie parties find the facts to be
/ as follows
In March, 1885, there was an examination before
the Judge Of the Police Court of the iiy OF Saera'
mento OF certain persons charged with having COM
| mitted murder in sad city The Police Judge or
| dered the testimony and proceedings to be taken
| down In shorthand, and appointed the plalntn
shorthand reporter for that purpose flalnuH &C,
| cepted the employment, and was engaged three fuil
DAYS in the work The reasonable value OF his SER
| vices was ten dollars per day. bis claim was duly
presented TO the Board Of Supervisors, and was by
| them rejected and this action was commenced
within six months after the reject on. The Police
| Judge certified TO the plaintiff 8 claim.
From the foregoing facts We find, as a conclusion
OF lay, that plaintiff is entitled to judgment for $50
| On the 2dday OF March, 1851 an Act Of the Legs-
at1re passed, entitled - An Act to am nd Sec
! ton $50 OF the Penal Code reating to the taking
and authorization of testimony examinations in
criminal cases" The first section OF the said Act
gives magistrate authority to order testimony and
proceedings such as those above mentioned, to be
taken down 10 shorthand, and to appoint a reporter
Tor that purpose. The second section of this Act s
as follows
" Section 3 The reporters fees shall be paid out
OF the treasury o. the county, or city and county,
| Oh the certificate Of the committing magistrate
IL is beyond doubt that, under the language of
this Act, plaintiff maintain his action. 1t is
claimed however, that the Act itself is not law, be-
cause it is in violation of Section q of Article w.
/ OF the State Constitution, which provides that
Every Act shall embrace but one subject, which
subj set shall be expressed in its title. The argu-
ment is that the fees of the reporter are not en-
bIaced in the subject of taking ard authorization
| OF testimony. But such a construction would be
straininS OF the words of the Constitution beyond
their reasonable and obvious meaning. Under such
a construction, large number Of the statutes Of
the State would be overturned and1be laws thrown
| into ineXtricab'e confusion The constitutional
| provision in question was undoubtedly founded
upon the fact that there would be legislators too
careless either to read to listen 20 bills before
| them, and upon the hope that such legislators
might happen to be av akened to a sense of their
And so the Constitution, after saving that each hill
shall be read three times on three several DAVIS
| throws the further protection around these sup
| posed incompetent legislators Of providing that
each Act shall embrace but ore sub ject which shall
be expressed in its title But it was certainly never
intended that the details OF Act should be put in
title. In that case the title would be nearly as
ong as the Act and the legislators of the cass sup
posed would never stop to hear a title read.
The evident meaning of the Constitution is that
the general subject of the Act shall be expressed in
the title that there shall be nothing in the body of
the Act foreign to the suggestions of the title that
the title shall not be fraud to entrap the unwary
Aud when the title Of Act says that it is for the
purpose OF the taking and Authorization of tes-
tImony 1t is clear that the paying for such taking
is an obvious and natural part OF that subject"
The other points in the do rot care to
notice at length. The word fees evidently means
compensation for services and, therefore, Il mat
ters not that the exact amount TO be aoSed is not
fixed by the statutes.
The Judge of the Police Court has the jursdic
ton and can exercise the powers of Justice OF the
Peace within the city, and is therefore, a magis-
trate within the meaning of the statute in question
The fact that he has clerk who has sworn duties
to perform, makes no difference
The expense OF taking testimony in short hand is
no doubt, sometimes onerous to the county, al
though 1t is compensated to some extent at least,
by the relief it gives to witnesses who would lose
much more time if the testimony had always to e
taken by the tedious method of long hand That
however, is question for the Legislature and not
for the Courts.
Let judgment be rendered for the plaintiff in the
sum of $50 and costs.
T. B. MCFARLAND, Superior Judge
concur:
JOHN W. ARMSTRONG, Superior Judge.