Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1884-11-19

1919 - 10 VIC t3ft tApIt<tOS hS 's's---
moi be- entitled 10 any further compcnsa-
sIon. ), Instead OF spying "he shall not be
entitled 10 receive anv fees, &e.,r over anu
~, iss face untenable. Even II ths plain
resnIng Of the language used did not for
md any such construction, the constitu-
t,onaj Requirement that no law should be
revived except by being recnacted at
length. would forbid il. Article V, Sec
ton ID.
n was claimed that the ease OF Thon Us.
the Commonwealth. " Virginia Reports,
vas an authority upon this subject. This
ease only decided that an attorneys
fee was to be taxed against Thon IN TINS
case. because ii had been decided against
him and In favor Of the Commonwealth.
IN the Court Of Appeals. This was the
only poipt involved. though tie Court goes
on 10 speak OF the Acknowledgements
right 10 receive the fee 10 be peid by rhon
under section 10 Of cnapter ISL OF the
Code Of 1879. This section provides that
m ease where there is n Judgment IN
favor Of the Commonwealth for costs. IN
which il taxed the fees or allowance OF any
persou. the same "shall he paid 10 nm by
The sheriff or other officer who NAV receive
said costs,- &c. Neither this section nor
This deci ion say one word about any les
beine paid out OF the public treasury. TO
Give them them the utmost scope that can
be claimed for them, they only say tnat
where there l. Judgment IN favor OF tue
Commonwealth for costs, upon which an
attorneys fee Is actually collected from me
adverse party. the Attorney-Gcnerni on "
Is case where be appeared Tor the Con-
monw,alth) is entitled 10 receive such Zee,
not ont OF the treasury, but from tue
sheriff or other officer who may collect ".
For these reasons yOur committee nave
charged against the Acknowledgement az
improperly drawn all fees received by nm
oui OF the public treasury, but, IN order 10
do him full justice. have credited hlm
hv the amount Of the taxed
fees in al eases where the Common
monwcalih has actually received money on
judgments or DEGREES in her favor. pre-.
suming that attorneys fees have been taxed
| i'm the costs i'm such cases and covered INTO
the treasury. The amount 50 credited IS
s572, rs shown by the Auditors statement
| \.
While your committee have gwen me
Attorney. General credit for the iuli amount
! II Statement 4, they deem II proper to say
| that the fees IN said statement. IN TIE eases
OF Kascy. Doakins, Walker t,w0 cases.,
| Wimbish (.eyen cases., and Goode (sevcn
cases). should have been stated at 500 each
! instead of IS. bich woald reduce the
amount 10y which the Accomplishment
would take credit to 1913.
Tie Attorney. General filed before your
committee a statement mot, however,
! claimed to be strictly accurite.) showing
/ which cases the Commonwealth had gained
and which she had lost Of those IN when
he had drawn fees from the treasury. In
view OF the reasons hcreinbeiOre stated,
Your committee did not consider this paper
relevant to the inquiries they were directed
10 make. as the Att0rney-General had no
right 10 draw any fees from the treasury.
But il fees were allowed him in all case.
IN which the Commonwealth had prevailed,
oven at the excessive rate at which some
OF them are stated in The AuditOr''
communication OF October -, 1881,
! W., - instead Of $50, even
Then the whole amount which he
would have been entitled 10 draw would
have been only s1,7l6 (Which would have
! included the SJ12 Of Statement AZ, and
| winch. deducted from the gross amount
oyerdrawn by him-viz.. -. l.S1-would
slill leave due by HIM @i.2Gs.SI. But there
is nothing in the Law on any Of The circum'
stances of the ease t1at iu>tities this view.
A fee Of 81 900 is allowed and paid "a
the Acknowledgement by the late Auditor
Allen IN the ease Of WimblSh rs. Townrs''
! executors, in Mccklenburg county. lOW
committee consider this payment TO have
been without authority OF law. Section y
~ charter ~ Of the Code OF 1873. under
which said Auditor purports to make it "a
IA 81 nfa1 fnmUnnnfea fIDF
Of Auditor Marye OF October -, 1851
allows the Auditor TO "appoInt agent, &
superntend the collection Of debt, to OF
claims OF the CommonWe alth" >: but see
ton 81 of the same chapter SAYS chat "fol
the service rendered 10y any agent under
the 18th or any subsequent section OF this
cbapter said Auditor hall recommend >ucl
COMPENSATION a. mgy seem 10 bin re lson
able. not exceeding in any ease > PEI
ccntum on the money actually pad into th'
treasury: and the Governor shall author
i've the PAYMENT ~ what may bc 80 recon-
mcnded, or 30 much thereof IS in his iudg
ment may bc proper.n Atthe time tins - 90
fee was allowed and paid. IL appears irou
the statement OF Auditor Marye filed will
his deposition that only S3.0iG.l e. had beer
collected. and Il does not appear either from
the records Of The AUDITOR otli'e or lrOu
the Governors testimony thai he ever or
dered the payment Of anything. II he hal
ordered ifs PAYMENT IL could not under tn
statute have been for sum exceeding
per cent. on the amount at that tim" col
Iecicd-Viz.. ~, 0iG.46.
inasmuch. however. Il, the additions
sum OF 5 i,iGS.5D has been lately collected
in the ease. and nlsmuch rs the Governor
and Auditor could now allow the AitOr
nCy.Gcncral per ccnt. on the who'll
amount collected, yOUr committee hay,
credited hm 10y S37j.7j 0hat being ) pc
cent. on the whole amOunD by way OF re
solving IN his favor all doubts that cOulC
be suggested.
Your committee al.o call attention to tn
fact that 81 .21l - OF fees and expenses i
paid the Acknowledgement Tor three trip
10 North Carolina. and excepting - q com
missiOncr'S report in the Roanoke Navigl
tiou ease. in Which the state only realized
S3.s32. 10.
DIFFERENT AND CONTINGENT AND TRAVEL
LING ENPENSES.
There has annually been appropriated BY
the General Assembly for the present At
t0rney -GcBcral since he has been in Office
the sum Of 5000 &" for payment OF rent o
Office and all contingent and travelling cX
ponses in attending to his official duties.
which sum j. 10 be paid on accounts certi
lied. II would appear that the act OF 1871
lOrbidding him To receive any " fees, per
quisitca. or rewards whatever" in adit
ton to his salary. by implication repealed
section 10 Of chapter IL OF the Code o.
1873, 80 ilr s. il ailoWed him mileage. anC
that said section bad never been rcehse,e;i,
and further, that II said section were still
IN force ~ TO mileage. it only allowed hun
mileage for attending the sessions Of thu
Court Of Appeals, and not for attending
other courts, Is has been charged
ard received BY him. But how
ever tins may be, your commttc,
are OF opinion that the question is con
trolled By the appropriation bills. whicl
have given him 5000 per annum to cover
Different and all contingent and trareNial
expenses. which is to be paid out on ac
counts certified by him. He has no righ
TO exceed Tor oiiice-rcnt contingent eV
penscs, and travelling expenses, either il
mileage or otherwise, bis annual apprOpr.
alton. Yet the statements hereinbcfOr,
made and referred 10 show that in the ycll
1852 he drew from the treasury -, 3GS. o.
on account Of these expenses and office
rent.
Some Of the items OF these expenses You