Daily camera., 1901-05-15

costs Of the prosecution. no matter whit
was the result oi the trial, were unpaid
The right to reimbursement is therefore
p rely statutory. and without the statute
giving il, it does not exist.
TN this state there are two sections
the statute applying to and governing
{ his question, M. A. S. sections 6oo ana
1907.
"Section 6o3 provides for the paymen,
Of costs incurred on behalf Of the prose
c ,,ion; section 1907 provides for the
payment of costs incurred on behalf of
tie defendant. provided defendant has
t,ken advantage Of the provisions OF
same At the proper time.
"These two sections have been con
strued by the supreme court and the
court Of appeals. The suit of Fremont
county VS.. Wilson, Sd appeals. AGA. was
instituted BY the clerk Of the district
court tor fees due for services rendered
on behalf of the defendant in criminal
cases. The contention Of the clerk was
that under section go the county was
liable for costs Of defendant when de-
fendant was acquitted. The court con
strung these two sections, page SOL.
said:
"The provisions Of section 1907 are
wise and bene6cent. They extend am
Pile protection to an INDECENT defendant.
They afford him every facility for max
ing a legitimate defense. and at the
same time provide safeguards against
the imposition of unnecessary burdens
upon the public; which section 6oo.
the construction contended for should be
adopted. would sweep away every re
striction. and enable an offender in use
less and unavailing defense. to pile up
costs ad ibitum for the county to pa,
and thus impose upon its people an u,
necessary and oppressive burden.
Such was not in cur view the ,ntentie q
of the legislature. We are clearly of the
opini On that there is no statute in thi:
ate creating any liability against a
county on account OF services rendered
By officers or witnes.e in behalf OF a de
fendant in a criminal case, unless the de-
fe ,dant has availed himself Of the pro
visions OF section 1907; and that section
6oo provides for the costs Of the pros
ecu,ion only"
In Bransom VS.. Larimer county. {
c ,lo App. p. ago. the court approved
the holding In case OF Fremont coun'y
vs.. Wilson. 3rd Colo. app. p. 4oe. and
said:
where it is sought TO collect frcm
the county the costs of prosecution.
must appear. if the defendant was con
vic,ed. that they can not be collected
from him; or if he was acquitted. thai
the prosecuting witness was not adjucg
ed to pay them; or. where a claim I
made for the defendants costs for wit
nesses, it must be shown that they au,ho'
i1ed by an order OF the court duly made
Wi,hou. shoving Of one Of these fact:
there is no cause Of action against the
county,"
"In the case OF Boykin VS.. The People
. Colo. I83, the supreme court approx
ed the holding OF the court Of appeals it
case OF Fremont County VS.. Wilson
Supra.
in the case of foulke VS.. Board oi
Commissioners of Arapahoe county, {
App. 2oI. the court approved the hold
ings in case Of Fremont County VS.. vii
son. 81 App. and Boykin VS.. The Peo
Pile, . Colo, thus showing clearly thai
the county is not liable for any costs in
cured on behalf of defendants in An,
criminal case. except where the defend
ants have avaiIed themselves of section
1907 of the statute.
I'm the Eldora trial or Bailey murder
trial, defer dan,s did not avail then.
selves OF the provisions of the statute
above mentioned. and it was my duty to
advise the commissioners"