The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-10-04
THE COURTS.
niSl1ici Cnurt.

-FANtt at AUuA
y. :. walker. Presiding: J. T. Hart. Clerk.
The following is the answer of City
Attorney WG!,cn in the suit OF {. j..
JOINS ". City OF y .Stin, referred 10
IN inE STATESMAN yesterday:
And now Genes defendant 10y its
attorney and excerpts TO plaintiffs
original petition, herein filed Septem-
Der 70, 1888, and says The same is in
sufficient IN law and CT this defendant
praYs Judgment of the court.
And III case the above demurrer le
oVeIruled 10y the court, the defendant
denies all and singular the allegations
IN piairtiiTs original petition contain
ed and requires strict proof thereof.
And further answering defendant
says: That under and by virtue of
article itU, Of the ordinances Of the
city OF Austin. passed and approved
February 10, 1878, and which was in
full force ;;n,i effect during the whole
period Of Plaintiffs incumbency OF
the Office OF city attorney for defend
ant, the city attorney WAS entitled
to receive il all cases OF mistlemeanor
brought before The mayor, when the
party plead guilty, the sum of two
doll KS, 10 be taxed in the bill of costs,
and no more; and that under article
1Ol OF said ordinances, which were
also il force during plaintiffs incum-
bency Of said Office, in all such cases
where the plaintiff plead not guilty,
the city attorney should prosecute
the case on trial, and on conviction of
the party accused, the city attorney
was entitled to fee of S. to be taxed
IN the bill Of costs, and no more.
That under and by virtue of article
102 of said ordinances, which was
then and is now in force, it was the
duty OF the city attorney to attend
daily Sundays eXcepted), ut the may
or'S office. for the purpose of prepar-
ing complaints and prosecuting cases
before the mayor, for which the city
attorney was allowed and entitled TO
receive, and did receive, while plant
If was such officer the fees prescribed
in said articles 100 and 101 of said ordi-
nanceS.
Further answering, defendant de-
MES that plaintiff is or ever was emit
tied, under article 103, of the city
ordinances, of the city of Austin, re-
ferred to in his said petition, to re.
ceive 10 per cent of all sums of money
collected by defendant as fines i'm
posed in the mayors court, during
plaintiffs incumbency of the office of
city attorney. Defendant says that
said article 1c3 prescribes that
the city attorney Shall receive 10 per
cent OF such sums OF money as
may be collected by civil suit
for the city Of Austin, but
that special provision is made for
the compensation of said attorney i'll
the prosecution Of misdemeanors be-
fore the mayor. by the terms of said
articles 100 and l01, hereinbefore re-
ferred to.
Defendant further says that it was
no Tart of the duties of the city at
torney for the city of Austin, during
plaintiffs incumbency of said Office,
to enforce the collection Of fines i'm
posed in the mayors court, a per cent
of which he now claims but that
under and by virtue Of articles 1875 and
127 of said ordinances of the city of
Austin, passed and approved February
10, 1878, it was the duty Of the city
marshal OF this defendant to enforce
the collection Of all penalties, fines
and costs imposed for the violation
Of any law or ordinance of the city of
Austin, such marshal being made re-
! spOnSible on his bond for such collec-
ton, and it was and is especially set
forth by the terms Of said article 1877,
that all moneys whatever collected by
the city marshal except costs of suit,
should be paid over to the city asses
sor and collector, and that the costs
of suit should be paid over by said
| marshal to the respective officers to
whom they were due.
Defendant says that the fines set
forth in plaintiffs exhibit were col
lected by said city marshal, aud that
in each Of said cases, making up
said exhibit, that II fee was taxed
III the bIi of costs for plaintiff,
which was also collected, and that
under said article (l27) the amount of
fines were or ought to have been paid
over to the assessor and collector, and
that the attorneys fees in all the
cases prosecuted by plaintiff, while
city attorney, before the mayor, were
paid to him by the said marshal long
before the institution Of this suit.
Wherefore, defendant prays that
plaintiff take nothing by this suit, and
that defendant have and recover all
costs in this behalf expended and all
costs of suit. n. S. WALTON,
II. 3. BARNHART,