The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1896-11-25
MILEAGE AND FEES.
Important Review Of the Law as it Re-
lates to Coastabies.

The commissioners of franklin county,
at the September term of court, refused
to pay the constables mileage or fees for
making the quarterly returns. A test
case was made by Constable Davidson.
who brought suit against the county TO
recover mileage and other fees. Argu-
ment was had before Judge Stewart.
The act of May %, 1893. was passed to
regulate the fees OF constables and other
officers. In so far as the several courts
had passed upon the act. Judge Stewart
stated in his opinion, subsequently filed,
he agreed with them in the main.
The judges conclusions, which are OF
general interest, are reproduced from a
report i'm the Chambersburg Valley
SPIRIT, as follows:
First The only service for which
constable can recover are those specifi-
cally enumerated in the act of I'D May,
1893. Whatever other service is requir-
ed of him is incidental to his Office and
must be performed without charge. The
act provides no compensation for max
ing the returns to court which are re-
quired of the constable.
Second A single warrant is ordinarily
sufficient in criminal case without re-
gard 10 the number charged in the infor-
nation. There may be exceptional cases
where the furtherance of justice requires
several. The compensation allowed the
officers is ''for execution warrants"
~
for the number of warrants; that is a
matter exclusively for the magistrate,
and il is properly enough left to his dis
cretion. Should the magistrate multi
ply warrants for any purpose other than
the requirements of justice, it would be
an abuse of office on his part, but the
constable is not to judge of that. IL is
the latter's duty to execute all the war
rants that come into his hands and he is
entitled to comp ensation for each that he
executes.
Third The act distinguishes between
the services rendered in executing the
warrant of arrest and executing the
commitment; for that reason we are
called upon to inquire as we might be
were the language employed doubtful or
ambiguous. In the one case the COM
pensation is allowed "for executing the
warrant in the other ''for taking body
into custody, or conveying to Jail on nit
timus or warrant"
In the suspended act of 1865 the words
''for each defendant occurs in both
cases. With respect to warrants, the
omission of these words from the act of
1893 evinces a clear intention to make
the warrant rather than the person the
measure of compensation. Were the
language of the two in regard TO the
service rendered in connections with
commitments, in all respects the same,
excepting the omitted words, ''for each
defendant" the omission would have the
same force as in the other case.
But the difference is marked and the
language of the late act so clearly indi-
Gates that il is the body or the person
that is to be the measure of compensation
that the use of the omitted words would
have been superfluous.
The act of 1858 reads, conveying TO
fendant;" the act of 1893. ''for taking
body into custody or conveying to Jail,
etc.
The use of the singular "body" implies
everything that could be understood from
the words leach defendant
With respect to warrant for arrest it
is the number of warrants executed that
determines the amount of compensation
with respect to delivery to jail it is the
number of persons delivered that deter
mines.
Fourth: So far as concerns the officer
who has it in charge a subpoena is 'serv-
ed only when it has been served upon
all named therein has within the proper
jurisdiction. For such service of subpoena
the constable is entitled TO fifty cents
when the subpoena issues from a magis-
trate.
When the subpoena requires the at
tendance of the witness at court, the Of
ficer serving it is not only on duty as
constable but as the sheriff7s officer, and
is entitled to the same compensation as
the sheriff would be for like service, fif-
teen cents for each witness served.
Fifth We have already said that for
services not specifically mentioned in the
act of 1888, even though such service be
required by law the constable can not
recover compensation. The act does not
pretend to specify all his duties, but
it does specify all the duties for which
he may charge.
1t distinguishes between justices and
constables in this regard. With respect
to the former. after specifying particular
ly many of the duties and services re-
quired and fixing the compensation
therefor, it provides that 1.-The fees for
services not therein specifically provided
shall be the same as for similar services"
No such general provision as this is made
with respect to constables. Now, while
for the reason stated the constable can
not be allowed for making his return to
court, it does not follow that he is TO be
denied his travelling expenses in connec-
ton with this service. We think if the
act were entirely silent on the subject
the constable would be entitled To mile
But il is not After fixing the mileage
or an execution returned nulla bona,
etc, it says For travelling expenses in
all other cases, each mile, ten cents"
Not in all other of the above specific
cases but ''in all other cases. is the lam
guage. Since the act does not indicate
all the duties and services that are re-
quired of constables any more than it
does in the case of justices, the language
used must be held to include all that are
omitted.
We are of opinion that constables are
entitled to mileage in making their re-
turn to court and, further, we are of
opinion that except when circular mile
age is expressly given in the act, all
mileage is on a straight basis of one way.
Judge Stewart then ordere,: Judgment |
to be entered for Sl365 in favor of Con-
stable Davidson, changing in a few par
ticulars the bill rendered by the consta-
bic.
Washington Pa. preachers will hold |
Thanksgiving services an hour earlier |
than usual, SO that local worshipers can
go to Pittsburg and watch the great |
Washington-Duquense football match, |
on which thousands of dollars are wager
ed