The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-06-18

bon. &. =. ar4an, acting attorney
general in the absence of Hon. A c.
Bishop. rendered an opinion yesterday
in reply to a request for advice from
the encouragement on the part of
State Audl,or Richards, as 10 whether
the state auditor is authorized to audit
and draw state warrants in payment
of jurors and witness certificates since
January a. of this year.
IL will be remembered that the ques-
ton arose some days ago when Utah
county presented a statement for the
payment of jurors fees-making no
statement as to which were criminal
or civil cases. Auditor Richards
was unwilling TO accept the construc-
ton which Utah coun9ys clerk put
upon that section of the counties gov
eminent law enacted by the last leg
islature, relating to the payment of
such fees and requested the guidance
Of the legal department of the state.
The opinion holds that the staue is not
liable for the payment of jurors GER
tifcades In civil cases. The question
was also asked relative to the states
liability for witness fees, and the
attorney-g eneraTs reply stated there
could be no question in that connec-
zion, since the law says plainly that
the state is only to pay witness fees in
criminal cases. Concerning the fees
OF Jurors, az discrepancy in the law
creates an opening for possible doubt
as TO its meaning, and in relation
thereto Mr.. Narian says:
The answer to the principal question
involves a consideration OF the several
provisions of the law relating to the
subject.
BY section IA of an act entitled An
act to establish a uniform system of
county government" the county clerk
is required to pay into the county
treasury for the use and benefit of fae
county. the fees as specified therein.
BY section 15l of the act amy party
to d civil case desiring a jury must
deposit with the clerk So, which the
clerk is required to deposit in the
county treasury 'as are other fees of
his office" Other fees of his office are
deposited for the use and benefit of
the county, and this jury fee is so de-
posted.
BY section Is Cpar. ~, The sums
required by Law to be paid to the jur-
ors in civil cases are expressly made
County charges. There would be no
question, think, were these provisions
relating to the subject. The intention
of the legislature would seem to be
clear that the counties aided by the
jury fund of fees taxed against liti-
gants, are required to pay for jury
services in civil cases. AS above shown,
the sums for jury service in civil cases
ara expressly made county charges.
This provision Of the statute can not
be overlooked and must be given, effect.
Even the subsequent provision of sec
ton 166 directly in conflict, 1 should
incline to the opinion that the provis-
f--7aa,
intent of the act.
A tax of So is imposed by the act
upon lftigants. which is covered into
the county treasury. In the absence
of any other disposition by law, Of
this tax the fair Inference would be
that it was designed. in part. % reim-
burse the county for the sums paid
for jury service.
But / find nothing in Section 166 in
consistent with the express provision
of Section 1914. The language is for
mileage and attendance of grand jurors,
for mileage and attendance of petit
jurors engaged in The trial of cases in
the district court. In the construction
and Interpretation of the statute, when
the context and apparent true intent
permits, we may supply and read into
the law a word necessary to complete
or make clear the meaning. The queS-
ton here is, what word may we supply
before cases" in the quoted para
graph The construction given by the
counties requires us TO read all be-
fore cases. 50 the statute would be for
the mileage and attendance Of petit
jurors engaged in the trial of all cases.
etc. This az once conflicts with (par
a Section le5 and the harmony of the
act is disturbed. Under settled rules
this construction is inadmissaple. II
there was any such purpose in the
mind of the draughtsman of this Sec
ton 1t could have been better subserv-
ed and without tautology by simply
saying. for mileage and attendance
OF grand and petit jurors in the dis
trict court" This would include jury
service in all cases. but il is cviden'
the legislature did not so intend. Hav-
ing by the succeeding section, cite5
above disposed of the matter for the
payment for jury service in civil cases
IL was designed by Section 166 to pro
vide for such service in c-imina
cas- It was not intended for the state
70 pay for jurors in justices courts ant
therefore express limitation must b.
made. So the act provides for pay
ment by the state for service in dis
trct courts. The subject matter o
the section relates entirely to crinina
cases. and we must read the languag'
as though criminal preceded eases.
Thereby all the provisions on this sub
ject are harmonized and full effec
given to all.
The opinion closes with the concis
statement that It is Mr.. Varians opin
hon shat the state is not liable for jur
ors fees and mileage in civil cases, an
recommends. in view Of the import
ance of the question, that it be sub
mitted 20 the supreme court as sooi
as possible
The statement Of Utah county
clerk, for payment of jury and witnes
fees. was evidently incorrect and wa
accordingly sent back to have thos
items eliminated which were not prop
erly a county charge.
The state board Of land commits
sionars will meet today 70 take actio
with reference to supplying count
treasurers with maps ard plats {
state. university and school lands !
order thst purchasers may make appl
cation without coming TO Salt LAX
the land act containing provision
thai effect. The maps and pats al
about complete and via be ready *
forwarding in a few days.
A d. Ferron, the boards selector.
expected to return today ana repoi
10 the board concerning the selection
he has made in Tooele county, whel
he has been at work for some days.