Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1885-11-17
AN INTERESTING DECISION.


Judge Rives Says Tint All Regu.
larry Summoned Trial Jurors are
Legally Entitled to Receive 81
Per bay for ZACH Days Attend
ance ON Court The Case Appealed
to the state supreme Court.
A decision was given in the District
Court yesterday in tho case of H. Phillips
vs.. Eureka County. The case was argued
and submitted to the Court upon an
agreed statement Of facts concerning the
payment of jury fees under the law passed
by the Legislature last Winter. The
plaintiff and his assignors alleged that in.
asmuch as they we're duly and regularly
summoned as trial jurors for the Feb
ruary term OF court, and inasmuch as
they appeared and answered to their
names whenever required TO do 30, upon
none OF which occasions and days were
they accepted or sworn to try q case, the
defendant became and is indebted to them
q. the rate of So a day. The case, which
was a proceeding known as submitting q
controversy without action" was argued
and submitted October 81, and was in
tended to test the question as to whether
jurors in this county are entitled to re-
| ceive q per diem compensation from the
| county for attendance and service as such,
| and the same was taken under advisement.
Judge Rives, in his opinion rendered yes
terday, says: ut is commended, on behalf
| of the plaintiff, that many causes of the
| ACT of 1873, entitled AN Act concerning
%juries,' are not repealed, and especially
| the f2th section of said Act, wherein pro-
| vision ia made for the county's paying said
jurors So per day. On the other hand it
was commended in behalf of the county that
the Act Of the Legislature entitled AN
| Act to regulate fees and compensation for
official and other services in the State of
| Nevada and to repeal all other Acts in re-.
lation thereto approved February 81,
1885. by necessary implication. repealed
the former Act of 1873. and the attorney
for the county relies upon section 8 Of the
ton of this section / find that
the Legislature has expressly for
hidden that Grand or trial Jurors
shall receive any fees in criminal cases,
but that the inhibition does not distinctly
go any further, and in view of the evident
hardship that such an inhibition would
work in the large majority OF instances, l
cannot think that the Legislature 80 in
tended, especially in view of the existing
law Of 1875. which, it ia only c~ontended, is
repealed by implication under the rule
that expressio unius est eXclusio alterius,
and upon examination / find the repeating
clause OF the Act of 1888 reads as follows
Section AZ: This Act repeals all other
Acts and parts Of Acts now in force relat-
ing to fees Of officers, which fees are COL
lectibie by said officers from the persons
for whom said services are rendered. II
the rule above contended for as sustaining
the views OF counsel for the county be ap-
plicable at all, it would seem that in order
that no repeal should occur by the impli-
cation the Legislature had been careful to
specify that the only Acts which it in
tended to repeal are those relating to the
fees of officers Section 8 of the Act OF
1888 has been in force since 1865. except in
so far as it was implicitly repealed by the
Act Of 1873, and my opinion is that since
it has been re-enacted since the latter Act
il only affects the compensation OF jurors
80 far as to prevent their being entitled to
compensation when serving in criminal
cases. While l fail to see the wisdom of
such a distinction in respect to their com
pensation, it can only be said that the
Legislature has clearly made such
"a distinction, and it must be sus-
tanned to that extent The same
distinction and provision was made in the
old law OF 1865, but being, as before stated,
implicitly repealed by section IL Of the Act
OF 1873, it has been imperative until re-
enacted by an Act subsequent to that of
1873, and thus by implication the Act of
1873 is SO far superseded by the latter Act
of 1883. These views answer the question
quoted in favor OF the plaintiff, and it fol-
lows therefrom that the plaintiff ia en-
titled to judgment In his favor for the
amount claimed and his costs"
During the regular meeting OF the Board
OF County Commissioners yesterday they
received the above decision, whereupon
the following was adopted:
Whereas, The suit heretofore brought
against the County Of Eureka by Fl. Phil
lips for 1923 for the attendance of various
persons as jurors upon the District Court
has been this day declared by the District
Court of this county in favor Of said Phil
lips and against said county, and
Whereas, 1t appears that the questions
involved in said suit are of great public
Importance, it is hereby
Ordered. That the District Attorney
forthwith appeal from said decision to the
Supreme Court OF the State, and take all
nacesaarv stems IN have ssid case presented /