The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-02-20
1T GOES AGAINST PIPER.
The Commissioner Must Pay the
Witness and Juror Fees.

Judge Henderson read the opinion o
the court in the case of Lewis P. Kelsey
VS.. George D. Piper, court commits.
sioner. The plaintiff commenced pro-
ceedings for mandamus to compel the
defendant to pay $3.50 due from the
Territory for fees as a witness on the
part of The Peopls in criminal cas-
The case came on for trial on the 10th
day of December. 1888, and the issues
were found by the court in favor of the
plaintiff and final judgment entered
aTardinga peremptory writ with costs.
From this judgment the defendant az
peals.
On the Sth day of March, 1888, an act
was passed by the Legislature, making
various appropriations, and among
others, for the payment OF witnesses
and jurors in criminal cases in the Dis
trict Courts of the Territory, and pro-
viding that the amount shall be drawn
upon vouchers duly authenticated for
services as jurors in Territorial civil
and criminal cases, and for witnesses in
criminal sscases in which the Terri
tory is liable. On the same day another
act was passed providing for the pay
ment OF jurors, witnesses and phono-
graphic reporters, and creating and de-
lining the duties OF court commits
sloners. The services for which the GER
tidcates in this case were issued were
rendered and the certificates issued in
February, 1888, and
BEFORE THESE ACTS WERE PASSED.
It is claimed by the defendant that
the two acts of 1888 are p1rti nsateriG
and should be construed together, and
that, while the appropriation appears
to be for all the witnesses and jurors
fees for 1888 and 1889, that, when it is
construed with the other act, is must
be construed to be an appropriation
only TO the amount covered by the rate
specified in section 1 that the commis-
sioner has no power beyond it. We ad-
nit !har the acts shonld be construed
together. They were passed on the
same day, by the same authority and
on the same subject We have no
doubt that the appropriation made
is the fund upon which the commits
missioner shall draw. The appropria-
ton is made for all the witnesses and
jurors fees for which the Territory is
liable during the years 1883 and 1889,
and we are unable to discover any,
thing in the act which indicates that it
is meant as an appropriation to apply
upon greater liability, but the con-
trary intention to thereby discharge
the entire obligation of the Territory is
apparent. 1t is matter of which this
court will take judicial knowle ge
and is apparent from past legislation
that prior to the acts in question there
never has been any appropriation for
paying witnesses and jurors as the SER
vices were rendered, but that each leg
islature has made appropriations to pay
the amount of outstanding certificates
as ascertained by a committee of the
Legislature. We think it is apparent
that the Legislature intended 10 pro-
vide for the pay nent of all certificates
for which the Territory was liable, ter
the date named, and commit their pay
ment to these commissioners, who
should be located near the several
courts and could make proper inquiry
concerning them, but services rendered
after January l, 1888, and before the
passage of these aoJs, should be paid
according to
THE LAW THEN IN FORCE,
and that the judgment Of the court be-
low in this respect was right. The
court below gave judgment against the
defendant for costs. A judgment
should be entered in this court remand
ing the case to the court below, with
instructions to so modify the judgment
appealed from as to provide for pay
ment of costs out Of the funds in the
defendants hands as commissioner
Neither party should recover costs in
this cnurt