The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-03-23
BIG VICTORY FOR
THE CONSTABLES
They VIII Get Fifty Cents for Each
Name on a Subpoena.
DECISION OP SUPERIOR COURT
II Afirms That OF Judge r. w. Gun-
ster Handed Down Some Time Ago.
Brief of the Argument That Was
Made by tho Attorneys for the
Plaintiff Before the Appellate
Court--An Appeal viii Not BE
Taken.

Many hundreds of dollars will be
thrown into the pockets of the consta-
bles of the state by the decision of the
superior court in the case of Richard
Barron against the county of Lacka-
wanna. The opinion was handed down
at Harrisburg Monday and afiirms the
decision of Judge r. w. Gunster OF this
county who held that a constable by
the provisions of the act of 1893, is
entitled to receive fifty cents for serv-
ing subpoena on every person whose
name appears upon it.
1t was held by the commissioners of
this county that the constable could
only receive a fee of fifty cents for
serving the paper on all those named
in it.
This Interpretation of the act led to
a conflict between the commissioners
and the consta bles and the organiza-
ton formed by the latter determined
to test the matter. Constable Richard
Barron, of Dickson City, was named as
plaintif' in the test case and the county
of Lackawanna was defendant. Attor-
ney Fred w. Fleitz and j. w. Car
penter representing the plaintiff, and
County Solicitor II. A. Knapp agreed
upon a statement of facts with refer
ence to the case and it was presented
to Judge Gunster in the form OF a. case
stated.
JUDGE GUNSTER'S DECISION.
AS set forth above he decided that a
constable is entitled to a fee of fifty
cents for every name that appears on
the subpoena. An appeal was taken
to the superior court by the county and
in arguing the case Attorneys Fleitz
and Carpenter said in their brief:
Section of the act of May %, 1893, pro-
vides "That from and after the passage
of this act the fees to be received by
constables in this commonwealth shall
be as follows: For executing warrant on
behalf of the commonwealth one dollar;
for serving subpoena fifty cents"
Attention is called to the change i'll the
phraseology of the act when it comes to
treat OF a subpoena. To execute as de-
fined by Webster means to follow out
or through to the end, put into absolute
and final effect, to finish: while service
is defined as the communication of pro-
cess to a party or witness, 50 as to sub
iect him to it's operation. 1t follows,
therefore, that writ is executed only when
all it's mandates are carried out; but t
is served as often as 1t is communicated
to q person named therein.
For executing a warrant which most
frequently Is to appreheTId but one per-
son. the fee is one dollar; while for serv-
ing a subpoena, which Usually contains
the names of several persons, it is fifty
cents. If the officer serves the subpoena
every time he communicates it's contents
to a witness, it follows that for each time
he does this he is entitled to a fee of
fifty cents.
In Murphy VS.. Fayette county, 10 G. C.
Rep. 80, this act was passed upon in an
opinion by Ewing, p. J., TO which we wish
to refer as 1t is founded upon reasoning
which we regard as unanswerable. The
mistake of many of the judges who have
passed upon this act is in supposing that
it requires a strict construction. While
statutes imposing costs are to be strictly
construed, statutes fixing fees of officers
are not.
SETTLES THE QUESTION.
An appeal to the supreme court from
this decision can be taken but Solicit
or Knapp said yesterday that he
thought such step would not be taken.
Many Of the constables have not ac-
cepted fees from the county commits
sioners for some time past. They were
waiting for this decision that they
might be entitled to the larger fees in
case decision was given in their IA
Vor.
In Lancaster county case decided
Monday by the superior court holds
that constable can only collect mile
age one way when serving q warrant.
The rate Der mile is ton cants