The record-union., 1893-05-15
CONSIABLES ARE IN IT.
They May Collect Mileage Both Ways
in Making Arrests.
An Oflce That Is Worth the Having by
an Energetic and Thrifty
Individual.

There has been filed a decision by the
Supreme Court in a case involving the
right of Constable to collect mileage both
for chasing up and returning a prisoner
to Jail after his arrest, holding that the
officer was entitled to mileage each way.
The case was appealed from the Supe-
rior Court of Merced County, which gave
judgment for the Constable. Decisions
had already been rendered in the affirma-
tive in the cases of Allen VS.. Napa County
(S2 Cal. 1S7) and Cunningham VS.. San
Joaquin County (49 Cal. 323.) 1t was con-
tended, however, that by Subdivision IA
of Section POI of the County Government
Act of 1889 Statutes of 1889, page 297) a
different rule of compensation has been
prescribed. Under that section Constables
in counties of the thirty ninth class, which
embraces Merced County, are authorized
to receive ''such fees as are now or may
hereafter be allowed by law, except that
the Constable's mileage shall not exceed
twenty-five cents for each mile travelled
in going only, in the discharge of the
duties OF his office"
The contention of the appellant in the
Merced case was that under this pro-
vision Constable is entitled to receive
mileage 'tor going only'' for the purpose
of making the arrest, and not for convex
ing the prisoner to jail afterwards. The
court declared itself of opinion, however
that the Legislature intended by this Sec
ton to change only the rate of mil leage
and not the subject for which it should be
received, and that, ii it had intended to
make any other change than the rate of
mileage, IL would have expressed its in
tention in definite terms.
The statutes of lS90-9l, page 14S, was the
law in force for regulating the fees of
Constables at the time when the County
Government Act was passed, says the
court, and must be resorted to for the
purpose of ascertaining ''such fees as are
allowed by law; and the construction
which that statute had received at the date
of the passage of the latter Act must be
held to have been intended by the Legis-
lature when it was adopted as the meas
ure of improvisation of Constables.
In Cunningham VS.. San JOAQUIN
County the court held that the words "in
going only" as used in that statute, aD-
piled only to executing a warrant of ar
rest, for the reason that executing a
warrant of arrest" and taking prisoner
before magistrate or to jaiP' were men
toned as separate ami distinct acts to be
done by the officers, and, therefore, that
the officer was entitled to mileage for his
travel in both directions, and this con-
struction was followed in Allen VS.. Napa
County, in case in which the right OF
Constable to mileage was involved After
citing a number of other cases the court
says:
I'VE hold. therefore, that the only
change in compensation of Constitutes
which the Legislature intended by the
above provision OF the County Govern
ment Act WAS TO reduce their mileage
from thirty cents to twenty-five cents per
mile, but that the subjects for which they
are entitled TO such mileage are the same
as existed when the Act was passed"
The opinion was written by Harrison
and concurred in by Paterson and Ga
route.