The San Francisco call., 1896-08-09

or order for the delivery of personal prop
erty, 81.
For taking any bond or undertaking. so
cents.
For serving an attachment or execution on
any ship, boat or vessel, S3
For keeping and caring for property under
attachment or execution, such sum as the
court may fix: provided, that no greater sum
than So per day shall be allowed to keeper
when necessarily employed.
For copy of any civil process or paper act
ually made by him when required or demanded
according to law, per folio. 10 cents; provided,
that when correct copies are furnished 10 him
for use no charge shall be made for such
copies.
For advertising sale of property and posting
notice, excl usive OF cost Of publication, or
furnishing notice for publication, each so
cents.
For publication of notice in newspaper, the
reasonable cost of publica ton, subject to the,
approval of the court
For serving writ OF possession or restitution,
putting person in possession of the premises
and removing the occupant, 81 so.
For subpenaing witness, including copy of
subpoena. eacn, IS cents
For summoning trial jury of twelve or less,
So; for each additional juror, 10 cents.
For travelling in the service of any paper,
actually and necessarily travelled, one way
only, Is cents, when such travel can be made
by rail; in other cases, % cents. No oconstruc-
ton to be allowed.
For collecting money on execution with or
without levy, per cent on the first $1,000 or
less, and one-half of 1 per cent on all sums
over $1,000.
For executing and delivering Sheriff,s deed,
81 SO.
For executing and delivering certificate of
sale, so cents.
For transporting prisoners to the County
Jail, the actual cost OF such transportation.
For executing and delivering any other in
strument, 10 cents per folio.
Sutro ct al, the question presented for
solution is whether the provisions of the
act entitled "An act to establish a uni
form system of county and township gov
ernments" apply to the City and County
of San Francisco, and particularly whether
the provisions of section 60 of the act pro-
viding for the election of county and town.
ship officers at the general election to be
held in November, 1894, and every four
years thereafter, apply to said City and
County.
1.-The reasoning of respondents" says the
appellants attorney, twill certainly be
very ingenious if they can discover logi-
cal plan by which the City and County of
San Francisco can be excluded from the
operation of the county government act,
and be controlled in relation to the cleo
ton of its officers by any act whatever.
If they say by section 4109, we can reply,
as we have argued above, it Is now a.
To- nIuin 70
County of San Francisco alone. Ii they
say the consolidation act, we can reply
that it was repealed in that respect by sec
ton 4109, Political Code, when that section
was amended in 1888, and became general
law applying to the whole State. And
even if it be controlled by the consolida-
ton act, the writ should have been
granted for the reasons already stated.
"For these reasons we submit that the
only construction that can be placed upon
the county government act without doing
violence to principles of constitutional
law, as already declared by this tribunal,
and without overruling numerous de-
cisions of this court, is to decide that said
act does apply to the City and County of
San Francisco"
3.
the Board of Supervisors of Solano
County, R. B. Carpenter OF counsel for
respondent, said: "Our contention In the
case now pending before the Supreme
Court and involving the terms of the pres
ent county officers of the State, is that the
provision excepting counties of the eighth
class from the four years term of the
others and limiting the eighth class to
two years is unconstitutional. The de-
cision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Miller ct al. vs. Curry, indicates that it will,
in due time, sustain our position.
'The county government act of 1888
was superseded and repealed by the
county government act of 1891, and the
county government act of 1891 was re-
1893. And this is so even if it were to be
assumed that the provision relating to
elections is unconstitutional and invalid
Each successive county government act is
intended to and does repeal the preceding
county government act; SO that, unless
the act of 1893 is valid as to elections, there
is no law for the holding of elections, and
the result is as has already been claimed
under the point lastly made, that the in
cumbents must hold their offices until
the qualification of their successors, and
there can be no successors until there is
law providing for their election"
And such is the condition of this COM
plicared legal tangle, which can be un-
raveled only by decision of the Supreme
H,,,r