The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-12-12

fees collected were enIorou on tHe Iec book, the amount of the costs collected from the State in these cases was $1, 4O415, as per exhibit A hereto attached and asked to be considered part of this re- port.
 Section 1884 of the code requires Cir cult Clerks to keep a fee book and Sec ton 1885 of the code provides as follows: No clerk, register or sheriff shall de- mand or receive a fee for any service by him performed. not justified by charge entered in his fee book
 "In the oases of Bilbro vs. Drakeford, 7s Ala, SIS and Mcdonald vs. Cox, 1O4 Ala. 379, the Supreme Court in constru- ing the above section expressly decides that all fees not entered upon the fee book are forfeited.
 Head note !, in the case of Bilbro vs. Drakeford reads as follows: The object of the statute Code, 6O0D is that fee books shall be kept, open to inspection of parties in interest, in which shall be entered every fee for each and every distinct service rendered; and to compel obedience, the penalty is the forfeiture or all fees if no book is kept, and If one Is kept of all fees not entered therein.
 "In the same case 1t Is further decided that preliminary to the right to take CT demand fees IS charge made and en- tered in the fee book
 'Mr. McCransy kept a fee book. but failed to enter the fees in the above cases therein and consequently forfeited the same under the above decision He also failed to enter these costs on the execution docket and issue executions therefor, as required by Sections 456S ana 4565 of the Code. He Is therefore techni- caIly and legally due the State this N'- 4O4.1 Is, but as the amounts collected on u and most lv paid to witnesses and the State sus- tained no loss by the failure to enter them on the fee book and execution dock at and issue executions therefor, l rec onarnend that when these entries are le- xally made and satisfactory proof there ! of rroduced before the Board Of Compro- mise. that MT. McCraney be required to | only nay such part thereof, as justice and equity demands. "Adr. McCroney seems to have enurelS
 noksconetrued, or misapprehended the law 1ala+Ave to the removal of prisoners. The stnAute relative to such removals, approV' Ad February Is, 1899, provides that tht l clark of the Court in which the prisoner ! ia tr4able must certify that the remoVa bill has been reported to and docketeo | or will be docketed by him. It furtnel | nroyddes, If such prisoner is conVacteo | the Clerk of the Court in which the con-
 viotIon is had shall tax the costs of such removal against him, and shall mne-
 daakely upon the adjournment of the court
 Issue execution therefor and for the oth- CT costs and deliver the same to 'he Sheriff of his county
 ''Tn the following cases, Nos 2959o, Hen-
 rv Horton removed from Georgia, fee S1s. 90; S4437, George Harwell, removed from | Georgia. fee Sl7.o7; 17S22. Ed Chapman removed from Georgia, fee $529o SO4SS | William Underwood, removed from Henry | County, fee $24. 4.65; 259Ss. Monroe Williams
 removed from Heny County, fee VIZ; aOods. Sam Foster, removed from Dale | County, fee $lo17; I711s, Bob Clark, remov- | cd from Henry County fee $l76O; lI2oS | Wiley Benett, removed from Montgom- cry County, fee $12.59, and So5S5 Martin
 Tucker removed from, Bullock County fee SSs9, the defendants were convicted and sentenced to the penitenitary. Although MT. McCroney certifes or | each of these removal bills that the same | had been docketed, or would be docketec by him, in not a single case did he dock | ct it. enter 1t on his fee book and exc cution docket and issue execution there | fore. as required by law. He is there | fore legally due the State $lI02 in these removal cases, but as satisfactory eVi' | dence was produced that these defend l ants were insoNent, that the costs coulo
 not have been collected by execution anc
 the State sustained no loss by failure tc
 tax these removal bills and issue execu'
 tons therefore l recommend that MT
 McCroney be required to pay only sucr
 part thereof as will compel obedience tc
 the law in the future
 The State pays for the removal of pris
 oners charged with Felonies the county
 for those charged VI misdemeanors
 Tt frequently occurs $hat a prisoner
 is removed charged with a felony anC
 convicted of a misdemeanor. as happen
 ed in the following cases to wit:
 No. 32660, r oyd King. removed iron
 Jefferson County, removal fee $26.20; No
 16463. Larence Cotton. removed iron