Lyon County times. [volume] (Silver City, Nev.) 1874-1907, 1885-11-21
THE PAY OF JURORS.
Judge Rives Decides that They
are Legally Entitled to Three
Dollars for Each Days Attend

:. Judge Rives. Of the District Court Of
Eureka county, has rendered a decision
in the case of H. Philips VS.. Eureka
county. The suit was for s4z3 claimed
by various persons, summoned as trial
Jurors in the District Court. The Sen
finei says 1t 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 Legis.
lature last Winter. The plaintiff and
his assignors alleged that inasmuch as
they were duly and regularly summon
ed as trial jurors for the February term
OF court, and inasmuch as they appear
ed and answered to their names when
ever required to do SO, upon none of
which occasions and days were they &C.
cepted or sworn TO try case, the de.
PENDANT became and is indebted to them
at the rate Of So .aday. The case,
which was a proceeding known as "sub
hitting a controversy without action"
was argued and submitted October 3Ist,
and was intended to test the question as
to whether jurors in this county are
entitled to receive per diem compen-
saton from the county for attendance
and service as such, and the same was
taken under Amusement. Judge Rives,
In his opinion rendered yesterday, says;
cit 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juries, are not repealed, and especially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 18th section OF said Act, wherein
provision is made for the county's pay
ing said Jurors s. per day. On the
other hand it was commended in behalf
of the county that the Act OF the Leg
islature 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 relation
thereto approved February Fl, 1855,
by necessary implication, repealed the
former Act of 1873, and the attorney
for the county relies upon section 9 Of
the Act of 1885. From careful CON
sideration of this section find that the
Legislature has expressly forbidden that
Grand or trial jurors shall receive any
fees in criminal cases, but that the inhi-
bilion 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, cannot
think that the Legislature SO intended,
especially in view Of the existing law of
1875, which, it is only commended, is re.
pealed by implication under the rule
that expressio unins est exclusio aiterins,
and upon examination find the repeal
ing clause OF the Act OF 1855 reads as
follows-Section 43: 'This Act repeats
all other Acts and parts Of Acts now in
force relating to fees of officers, which
fees are collectible by said officers from
the persons for whom said services are
rendered. If the rule above commended
for as sustaining the views of coansel
for the codAty be applicable at all, it
would seem that in order that no repeal
should occur by the implication the
Legislature had been careful to specify
that the only Acts which it intended to
repeal are those relating to the fees of
officers Section 9 OF the Act of 1888
has been in force since 1865, except in
SO for as it was implicitly repealed by
the Act If 1873, and my opinion is that
since it has been re enacted since the
latter Act it only affects the compensa-
ton of jurors SO far as to prevent their
being entitled TO compensation when
serving in criminal cases. While fail
to see the wisdom of such distinction
in respect to their compensations, it can
only be said that the Legislature has
clearly made such distinction, and it
must be sustained 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
Tins nv implication the Act of 1874 is