The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-12-20
THE MILEAGE CASE DECIDED
Judge Mckinley Reverses the
Acknowledgement
JURORS WILL HAVE MILEAGE
When They Return TO Court After an
Adjourned Meeting
The Law Of the Case Set Forth at Length -
All the Points at Issue Fully Covered
General Court News


General Court News
Judge Mckinley yesterday gave his de.
cision in the case of H. f. Storrs, foreman
of the grand jury, against the comfy of
Los Angeles, in which he reverses Attorney
General Fitzgerald and holds that the
jurors are entitled to mileage for each and
every time they return to court after an
adjournment of one day or more, when
they are excused by the court. His honor
holds that mileage annot be collected for
the journeys to and from public institrl-
tons, as this does not come within the
meaning of the phrase for each mile
actually travelled in attending court as a
juror" AS this decision is matter of in.
terest to every grand and petty juror in the
state, brief resume of the facts leading
up to the same is apropos at this time. As
is we'll known. it has always been GUS
tomary to allow jurors mileage for their
trips when they were excused for one Or
more days, and the present grand iurymen
collected their mileage on this nass for the
first month of their service. When the
second months demands came in there
was hitch. Chairman Francisco, in look
ing over his scrapbook, came across a
clipping from the San Franiscc Examiner,
published in August last, in which Attor-
ney-General Fitzgerald was quoted, in re-
ply to an official inquiry from the district
attorney of Shasta county, to the effect
that jurors we're only entitled to mileage
for one trip during session of the grand
jury, and that they could not claim mile
age OH returning to court litter adjourned
meetings, even when excused for one or
more days. This discovery caused quite
sensation, as it was against all precedent,
and all demands for mileage were promptly
hung up pending further advices. Chairman
Francisco telegraphed Attorney General
Fitzgerald at once, calling his attention to
the newspaper article and asking him if it
was correct. The attorney general replied
by telegraph that it was, and that in his
opinion the Shasta case was precedent
for the whole state. On receiving this au-
thority the supervisors refused to audit
any further demands for mileage, and Or
dered all jurors demands changed to con-
form with this opinion, cutting OF the
mileage. This action of the supervisors
was taken against the advice of their legal
advisor, Assistant District Attorney George
M. Ho!ton, ss we'll as his chief. District At
torney Donnell, who held that the attorney
generals opinion was not good law, and
that jurors were entitled to their mileage.
as heretofore. They further insisted that
the supervisors had no right to order the
demands changed, in which view they were
backed up by Judge Shaw, who on one oc-
mind for having ordered the clerk of his
court to change the demands of his jury
men, cutting off their mileage.
The supervisors, however, refused to al
low the mileage claims, and to settle tue
matter foreman Storrs instituted suit
against the county to recover the face value
of his original demand, all the points in
volved in the issue being embodied in his
complaint. Suit was brought before Town
ship Justice Young. who promptly decided
in favor of the plaintiff. An appeal was
taken to the superior court, and Judge Nc
Kinley has confirmed the ruling of the
lower court. This finally settles the whole
matter, so far as this county is concerned.
OF course the auditor could refuse to pay
the demands, when mandamus proceed.
ings could be instituted, and in this way
the case can be got before the supreme
court. Owing to the importance of the
subject, Judge McKinley's opinion is given
in full, as follows:
This is an action by plaintiff, one of the
regularly impaneled grand jurors of the
county of Los Angeles. in which he seeks
to recover fees and mileage for services
rendered by him during the month of DC.
tober, portion of his claim for which was
rejected by the board of supervisors. The
only question involved in the case is as to
the amount of mileage to which the plain
tiff is entitled.
Plaintiff seeks to recover mileage for the
distance alleged to have been actually
travelled by him in attending court as
grand juror upon six different occasions
when there had been an adjournment of
the grand jury over ono or more days. He
also seeks to recover mileage for the di s.
tance travelled by him as grand juror for
the purpose of inspecting certain public in
stitutions;; The compensation of jurors is
liked by the act approved March rs, S95,
establishing the fees of county, township
and other officers, and of jurors and wit
nesses, in this state, which provides as fol-
lows:
"For attending as a grand juror or juror
in the superior court, for each days at
tendance, per day, 81 90: for each mile
actually travelled in attending court as a
juror. except in criminal cases in justc ss'
courts. for which no allowance shall be
made, in going only, per mile, l5 cents"
This statute. being general in character,
and evidently intended to cover entirely
the question of the compensation of jur-
ors, has repealed and taken the place of
all other statutes with reference to such
all VI tilc opinion tnat
the mileage claimed while engaged in in
speeding public institutions cannot be al
lowed, as that travel does not come within
the phrase ''for each mile actually travelled
in attending court as q juror" the mean
ing of which clearly covers only the
mileage for travel from the residence of
the juror to the court.
The other point involved is, simply
grand juror is entitled to only
one mileage for attending upon the session
OF the grand jury. or whether, when there
is an adjournment over day, he is EN-
titled TO mileage for such adjourned ses-
sions. The right of the grand jury to adj
journ for more than one day is not contro-
verted in this case, and there is, therefore.
no difference between the case of grand
juror asking mileage for an adjourned
session and juror who has been excused
from attendance upon the court for one or
more days. The language of the statute
would seem clearly to indicate that ii was
the intention of the legislature to allow
mileage for each mile actually travelled
from the residence of the juror to the
court. Either the jurors must be said to be
in attendance upon court,
and therefore entitled to compensation by
. per diem fee for each of such days, or
they must be entitled to mileage for re-
turn after period when they have not
been i'll attendance upon the court Where
Jurors are excused or adjourned from day
In daV. thpir attondo poa rrpo,, bo oouct l.,