The record-union., 1894-03-31
CONCERNING FEES OF OHERIFFS.
Judge Johnson Explains What Are
Legal Charges.
Sheriff O'Neil's Mileage Claim Against
the County Reduced About
One-Fourth.

allow. lie accordingly brought suit
against the county. and yesterday Supe-
rior Judge Johnson rendered judgment
in his favor, but cut down the amount of
the claims to $22S. In the decision the
court says:
This is an action brought by the plaint-
III for certain services rendered for the
county of Sacramento in serving pro-
cesses in criminal proceedings outside of
the county, which were pending within
the county.
The services are alleged to be for going
to San Francisco. Alameda and other
counties on divers different occasions for
the purpose OF making arrests and serV-
ing subpenas in criminal actions pending
IN this county.
The Legislature of 1891, and before
plaintiff was elected or entered upon the
duties of the office of Sheriff, passed
County Government Act providing for
the government of counties and town
ships and fixing the salaries Of officers,
etc. Section l67 of that Act, in Subdl-
vision 2, fixes the compensation of
Sheritfs for this county as follows: 1.-The
Sheriff, S9, 900 per annum and such fees
and mileage as are now or maya be here
after provided by law for all services
done or performed in actions coming
from another county. and for all criminal
services necessarily performed outside
the county" etc. statutes 1891, p. 3fl.)
1t will be observed that all after the
words nine thousand dollars" is added
by the amendment of 1891, from which
it Is apparent that it was the intention of
the Legislature to increase the compensa-
ton of the Sheriff by the addition of such
sums as he should received for services
performed in certain instances.
This view is pointed by the words Of
Section 2l7 of the same Act: 'All salaried
officers of the several counties of this
State shall collect and pay into the County
Treasury on the first Monday in each
month the fees now or hereafter allowed
by law in all cases, except the percentage
hereinbefore allowed officers, and except
ing such tees as are charge against the
county" Statutes of 1891, page 4lS.)
Counsel for the defendant claim that
this, as we'll as the preceding section re-
ferred to. is nulliied by the provisions of
an Act approved March 10, 1891 statutes
of 1891, page 81, which provides that all
fees of officers who receive salary shall
be paid over into the County Treasury.
But this Act was approved March 10, 1891,
while the County Government Act was
approved March 81, 1891. Where there is
conflict between two laws, the latter
must prevail. l doubt if there is con-
tlict between the laws. The Act Of March
10th applies to officers who receive a
tended to provide procedure for the dis
position of the fees which he collects for
his acts which belong to his employer, the
county. and not to him, because he is paid
a stated salary for his services. But here
he is paid for his services not only a
stated salary, but in addition thereto ne is
paid certain fees as compensation. Con-
sistency would not say in one breath that
he should receive certain fees in part as a
compensation and in another that he
should pay them over to the County
Treasury.
Defendants counsel claim that because
he Is paid in part salary and IN part fees
as a compensation, and there is no such
provision for any other county, that it is
special legislation. l find a provision
quite similar in the fourth class counties,
while ours is of the ftth-class. The
classification of counties, in accordance
to the population, has been recognized by
our Supreme Court as being within the
bounds of our fundamental law. 1t is
certainly within the province OF the Leg
islature to fix the compensation of officers
serving in each Class; if so, why not pre-
scribe the manner in which they are to
be paid?
The next question to be determined is:
What are the fees to which plaintiff is
entitled? He claims 20 cents mile for
each mile travelled, both going and COM
lDR 1TOE1 pIdCS w Wn6I0 p6IIOIillS SUCH
services, and cites as his authority there
for the Act of March 5, 1870. Statutes
1S69-lS70. page i4S, Section g. But on ex-
animation we find that the Act of March
5. 1870, is repealed so far as it applies to
Sacramento County, by the Act of Feb
ruary 2S, 1874, (Statutes of lS73-lS74, page
204. Then we will have to look else
where to find out what is meant by the
expression. ''such fees and mileage as
are now or may hereafter be allowed by
law"
The Act last referred to provides for
fees for the Sheriff in certain cases, but
the same Act fixes the Sheriff's salary at
a fixed sum. and provides that he shall
pay over all such fees into the county
treasury. Such provisions of that Act as
fixed the fees of the Sheriff IS office, and
provided that the same should be paid
into the county treasury, remain un
repealed, as far as the fees to be collected
are concerned, with slight notifications
as to what he shall keep for himself and
what he shall pay into the county treas
ury. One of the latter is the provisions of
the Act OF 1891, upon which the claim in
this suit is based. That is, he is allowed
as compensation for his services the fees
and mileage now or hereafter to be al
lowed by law for services rendered in
criminal proceedings where it becomes
necessary to travel outside of the county.
Section 2 OF the Act of February %, 1874,
among other things provides that the
Sheriff shall receive for travelling, the
distance to be computed from the Court
house. to serve a subpoena, the sum of
thirty cents per mile for each mile neces-
sarly travelled in going only. l am un-
able to find any statute that likes any fees
or mileage for the Sheriff in case of the
service OF a warrant Of arrest. | am salts
fled that there is none such now, nor was
there any at the time of the passage of the
ACT of 1891. \ either is there any fee fixed
for the service OF a subpoena.
The Act of 1891 referred to is crude and
imperfect, and perhaps took many things
as existing which did not exist; but, be
that as it may, l can only take the Act
at what it says. 1t, in effect. says that the
Sheriff shall receive as compensation
for his services, mileage at the rate of 30
cents per mile in going only when be
serves q subpoena in criminal case pend
ing in this county, outside OF the county.
When he goes outside OF the county to
serve warrant of arrest, he is entitled to
no compensation, except that he is en-
titled to be reimbursed for his actual ex-
penses in such service.
In the claim presented to the Board of
Supervisors, which Is the basis of this
suit, l find two of the items are for mile
age for arresting criminals outside of the
county, one for 50 and one for SIS; also,
an item of s. for serving warrant of
arrest. As l said before, / can find no
statute authorizing these items, but the
item of car fare for defendant from Rock
lin, 20 cents, in the case of People VS.. j.
W. Torrents, and car fare of defendant
from Stockton, in case of People VS.. d.
NJ. Jennison, of 81 20, are proper charges.
The other items are for serving subpenas
in different cases in distant counties and
demand 20 cents a mile for both ways.
Plaintiff should receive the sum of 80
cents per mile for each mile travelled in
such case for one way only and each of