Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-12-07

chaser, he must ray the county
clerk one dollar Tor the Issuance
Of the deed, and 1880 for recording
and acknowledging, aud then would
have to 10 TO the recorders office and
pay 50 for recording In the proper
place. Upon this, Mr. VArian au-
swered the second cot OF questions In
the negative.
G.. Il. Allen next took up the discus-
sion on behalf Of the county clerk
charging for lshuing the deed, ior
acknowledging It, and TOT recording IL
In detail. As 10 the 81 for Issuing tbs
deed, there was no contest, Regard
Ing tho acknowledgment, Mt. Allen
said the county clerk had 10 get
notary TO do that, aud the law surely
DID not contemplate that the clerk
should pay II out OF his own pocket.
Tho Legislature had not Intended to
affect the fee for acknowledgment 40
provided In tho general law, hut mere.
ly ~ limit the charge Tor issuiug 10 81,
~ tho previous county clerk hpd
charged as high rs s.. As 10 the ts-
cofding at length, Mr.. Allen Insisted
that that was what the statute con-
tempinted, and not a mere memOfAn'
DUN Tor thu benefit Of toe county
court, ~ II was net matter OF Interest
10 the court, concerning only private
parties TO tho contract which the
deed represented. Tho county clerk
could not be Indicted Tor this recording
At length anu charging therefor, be-
cause tho law required II OF him. As
10 the last question asked by the grand
Jury, Mr.. a Hen said the clerk dbl not
contend that an Affirmative answer
should be givon; the law was plAiu
that y negative reply was proper. AZ
TO the other three questions, Mr. Allen
Insisted that the law required Ru aiiir-
native reply 10 each.
q. j. Spencp, on behalf Of Clerk
Stanton, arguing that the recording OF
deeds by tho county clerk meant re-
cOrdlng nj length. No other record 0f
ueed could DO made; memorandum
was insufficient,
Judge huwAi, ON behalf OF the gov.
eminent, Insisted that the only cOGi-
penuntlOn the county clerk was Oh
Titled to was 81 for Issuing the deed.
lie could not demand tho 81, aud then
intltt Ou nity cents Tor AokuUw lodging
~, ~ u was not n valid deed until IL
was Acknowledged. II the cletks
oialm was right, then the issue OF the
ueeJ was sl.jO, Instead ofSl. Tbs law
rald a. Was tho limit, aud n the CLERK
dld not HE II he had the privilege
OF tesigning. rio would not extend
his compensation. IL the truth had
been sought for as diligently aa tho
fees In this matter, there would have
been no question NJ 10 the meaning Of
the law. AZ TO the recording, II was a
record Of the fact OF issuing the deed,
not copying tbs deed Ia the record the
latter WAS the recorders business. He
answered all the questions Of tho Jury
10 the negative.
Judge Merritt - Judge HowRt, do
you think tho grand jury nesas In.
struciion nOW2
Assistant District Attorney HowAt
Il think they arc M much In TITO DARK
AZ ever after hearing these Rtgumon ts.
/ believe they need thu instruction,
Judge Merritt then stated 10 the Jury
that 1t was not for the court TO say
whethsr or not the feo for county
clerk was sufficient; that was for the
Legislature. That body bad author.
ICED 81 TO DO charged Tor issuing Tho
deed. II authorized no charge for ac-
kuowledging, aud none Tor racer ding.
The entire fee was 81, and no more
could be lawfully charged. Amy other
charges were unauthorized anu exceu.
tlve.,
COUNTY COURTS FEES.
While the statute regarding the
clerks' fees was being discussed, the
grand Jury came into court ana sub
mit,ed some Inquiries regarding the
mileage and pay VI probate judges
county seleotmen, etc. on this sub.
jet, Il. l.. Williams, who appeared Mt
the rtqustt Of SelootmAn Goddss, nd.
dressed the court. He held that they
were entitled to 81 per day, and mile
age to and from each session Of tbs
court, and to tho per diem while en-
gREed In COMMITTEES work.
Judge Hnwat stated that one OF the
questions Of the grand Jury was
whether mileage could bo charged each
day.
To this Mr.. williams replied tina,
lie did not think II could b.
10 charged. There were -four
sessions OF the county court each year,
and mileage could DO claimed from the
residence OF the aeluotmsn or probate
| Judge 10 the county ssat for each OF
these sessions; but he could not gC
home every night and charge niileag,
each day.
AZ to the proposition that the pro
bate judge anu eelectmen could clai N
per diem for committee work, Judge
HowRt stated that while the grand
Jury inquired on that point, he be-
ll-ved the Eor diem could be properly
claimed.
Mr. Williams stated that in tn,
matter Ola doubtful statute, the issuei
should DO determined by a civil action,
and not by criminal proceeding
where II was plain there was ne
criminal intent. This court ought {,
instruct the Jury, suggested MIR. vii
llsms. In this mileage business thorI
was a dictum Of the Supreme Court o
the Territory and an opinion OF tn,
county attorney that In a measure ex
cused this charges made; though th'
law was clearly against that diotun
aud opinion.
Judge Howat said one question wa
whether, when n toleolman was TEN
porhrily out Of thu county, could n,
charge from the county line, when /
was farther than his residenoe2
Mr.. Williams replied that mileage
could be charged only from the officer
residence.
Judge HowRt then asked II miloag,
was only 10 the county scat, or coulI
mileage be charged by SAN Lax,
City member Ho had been INFORMED
that mileage mad been charged for go
ing across tue hall to the COMMITTEES
|