The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-12-20

usually reach the higher courts, whose dec-
sions alone are reported.
In the case of Howes VS.. Abbott, rs Call,
the question of mileage of supervisors was
discussed and decided. In that case the
supreme court held that supervisors in
counties of the 33rd class, the law in regard
to which provided that supervisors should
receive "ten cents per mile in travelling 10
and from their respective residences to the
county seat" were not entitled to mileage
for each day where the adjournment was
from day to day. The reasoning in that
case, however, in no way streng hens the
position of the defendant herein. The
court bases it's opinion upon the fact that,
while the supervisors we're engaged in the
performance OF their duties, their official
residences were at the county seat. In
that case the court say:
Statutes should be SO construed, If pos.
sible, as to express the intention of the
legislature. The term mileage is defined
to mean: "A compensation allowed by
law to officers for their trouble and ex-
penses in travelling on public BUSINESS
(Bouvier's LawsDict) The law requires a
supervisors to attend all regular and
special sessions of the board, and to be
present and assist the other members in
transacting such business as lawfully
comes before them. And while engaged in
the performance of these duties his off.
cal residence is the county reat. In going
to place of meeting at the beginning OF u
session, and in returning to his home at
the end of it, he is evidently travelling on
public bnsiness.' But if, during session,
he makes daily visits TO his home, such
visits must be deemed to have been made
for his own convenience. comfort. or
economy, or to attend to his own private
affairs, and not on public business"
In this case. when the grand jury adj
journs for more than one day, the jurors
cannot be said to be making simply visit
to their homes. They return to their
home because they are excused from at
tendance upon the court. and when they
renew their attendance they do so because
required to return, and are therefore
"traveling on public business" and are ell
titled to compensation for the trouble and
expense occasioned thereby.
There are several cases with reference
to mileage allowed witnesses bearing on
this case There is no essential difference
between the comp ,nsation of juror ex-
cused from attendance for a few days and
that of witness SO excused.
"Where case was called on Monday
and postponed ill Wednesday witnesses
who went home on Monday and returned
on Wednesday are entitled to mileage"
Harmon VS.. Shanks, 3 Pa. Dist. Reps,
S13.)
Witnesses should be allowed additional
mileage if going and return is reasonable"
(Henry vs.. Walton, 10, Atlantic, 1919
"Where witnesses are subppuaed to at
tend trial in the district court and are
present at the time named in response to
SUCH subpoena. and thereupon OH applica-
ton of both parties the court postpones the
trial to some subsequent day in the term
and notifies the Witnesses to be present
upon such subsequent day without further
subpoena, held that sucn witnesses are JUS
titled in returning home to remain until
such subsequent day and are entitled to
mileage for returning on that day" Union
Pacific Railway Company VS.. Harris, 20
Kan. l29.)
In the case Of Hathaway VS.. Roach, .
Woodbury. and Minot's Reports, the Court
say: Had the witnesses come in twice ut
different periods, and by order OF the court,
- jurors sometimes do, it would seem to
be reasonable, as such an order is pre-
sumed to be for the public convenience. to
Day the witnesses for two travels. The
jurors generally are allowed them in such
cases. But when the witnesses come in
twice at the same term on account of
postponement by agreement of the parties,
and not by any order of the court and not
on public account, the payment of Sec
ond travel to them should depend on the
agreement, if it covers the case And if it
does not cover the case, it seems to me
that the presumption of law and fact must
be that the witnesses should continue their
attendance and be paid for it till they were
discharged by the parties OF the court.''
The intent of the legislature must be
sonable and fair compensation for the
jurors. While the courts are not to make
laws in order to do Justice, yet in constru-
ing them the necessity existing for their
enactment should be taken into considera-
ton in determining their meaning. 1t is
apparent that il this law be construed to
mean that iurorslcannot receive mileage ex-
cept upon their first attendance although
they are excused over periods of several
days, no fair compensation for their sery.
ices will be received except by jurors re-
siding at or near the county seal. A Juror
residing at any considerable distance
would eXpend practically all of his per
diem in paying the expenses of travel
from his residence to the county seat, if he
returned to his home on the numerous un-
avoidable occasions when he is excused
from attendance. There would be no fair
ness in holding that the court can excuse
him from attendance and yet refuse to pay
him either per diem for the days he is not
engaged, or mileage from his home
where he has returned and engaged in his
other avOcations in the period when the
county does not require his services. Our
supreme court has held that he cannot re-
ceive per diem except on the days when
he is in actual attendance upon the courts.
He is, therefore. under the law. justified in
returning to his home, and if he again at
tends upon the court he does so because
there is practically new demand for his
presence. and he should receive mileage to
cover the Trouble and expense of mis- travel.
Let findings and judgment be drawn in
favor of the plaintiff in accordance with
this opinion.
Suit for Damages
j. l.. Mccartney has instituted suit
against Edmund l.. Maxwell, to recover
81 500 damages for personal injuries sus-