The San Francisco call., 1897-07-28
ALL JURORS TO
GET THEIR FEES
Judge Hebbard Interprets
the Law Passed Two
Years Ago.
Interesting Point for Taxpayers
and Other Citizens of San
Francisco.
Additional Burden Imposed on the
Treasury by This New
Departure.

JuQRe heDDaCQ OF the superior court
has decided that all Jurors summoned and
who appear to try cases in the Superior
Court are entitled to be paid. per-diem
com mpensation whether they are called to
the jury box or not. Thus is set at rest a
controversy that has caused considerabl
trouble about the courts for several years.
Incidentally, it will add several thous-
and dollars annually 10 the cost Of main
tanning the courts.
Citizens who, cav after day, have been
dragged from their usual vocations to
dance atten ance on the convenience or
caprice of Judges and lawyers have COM
planned bitterly of their loss of time with
out any compensation for the hardship
thus arbitrarily i'm posed on them. They
have pointed tc the TACT that the salaries
OF Judges and clerks and bailiffs were
paid whether any business was done OF
not and have demanded to know why
jurors, if their services are necessary to
to the administration of justice, should
not also be properly remunrrated by the
public for services rendered for the benefit
of the community.
On the other hand economi SITS in the
ad on of the CIty's affairs have
p
and privileges, i'm plies the bearing OF such
burdens as may fall to the lot of the
c;tlZen.
So many exemptions have been claimed
and allow q by law and courts, however,
| that the list of those available for jury
duty has been materially reduced, afford
ing cause for com plaint and supplying
ground loT the demand so often made
that all who are summoned to serve as
jurors shall be paid The usual fee, whether
accepted 10 try case or not.
Samuel NJ. Hilton was the first to bring
the matter to q legal test. He answered
10 his name as a mem ber OF the panel for
| twenty days, but wa not accepted to try
any case before the court. When lie
asked County Clerk Curry for his certiti-
cate of service that officer refused to issue
the paper because Mr.. Hilton had not
actually served as Juror, 30 suit was
brought to enforce the claim. In rendering
his decision Judge Hebbard said:
The last law on the subject is an act en- titled
"Au act to establish the fees of county, town.
ship and other officers and oil jurors and
1895, which act contains the following Ian
guage only in relation to jurors fees:
For attending as a grand juror or Juror in the
Superior Court Tor eacn days ate ndance' per
Juror sworn to try the cause per da in civil cases
| only, 81: for each mile actually travelled in at
in Justices Court for which no ailowa nee shall be
made, in going only, per mile, 15 cents
Section OF the act reads: "The foil owing
county, township and other officers shall have
charge and collect the following fees" and
the concluding sections OF the act are as fol-
lows:
Section g. All acts and parts of acts incon-
sistent herewith are hereby repeated
This act is in its nature and scope general,
extending TO every county in the State and to
every officer thereof, and 10 every fee thereto
apper tanning, the City and County OF San
Francisco not excepted. (See Miller vs. Curry,
lib Cal, 644).
1t is a new law esta blishing such fees, amend
atory of no particular act, but repeating every
law upon the subject theretofore exist ting and
inconsistent with 1t. II repealS the act of Feb
ruary 27, 1866, in so far as that act, by its
lence in providing no way by which juror
may be paid for each days attendance In cases
where he is not sworn TO try tie case, is incon-
sistent with ii, and because the Supreme Court
in two late cases has decided that jurors are
entitled to per-diem compensation when they
are in attendance on the court (Jacobs VS.. Ell
liott, 104 Cal. 3lS), and that a juror may be in
attendance upon court without being impan-
eled to try cau>e, and tor every day OF such
attendance the statute authorizes him to be
corr pensated (MaSon VS.. Culbert 10S Cal,
249). 1t repeals the act of 1866 because it Is
general law, wit no saving or excepting clause
as to the special act of 1866.
The court decided that previous enact
ments touching the issuance of certiti-
Gates by the County Clerk had not been
disturbed and the petitioner has a right
to demand such certificate and if mis-
staten of facts be correct he is entitled
to payment out of the County treasury.
The demurrer 70 the petition was there
tore overruled and the County Clerk was
allowed five DAYS in which to make
joinder of any fact he may be thereto ad-
vlsed.
Thousands of dollars in withheld fees
will be presented at once with demand
for payment. Some few of those that ac-
crued early in 1895 may be barred by the
statute of limitations. 1t Is intim ated
that the extra drain on the City treasury
on account of his new law will amount to
not less than $40, 900 year.