Amador ledger., 1904-08-05
July 81, 1904 s.FNo. 87l5 In Ban

July ~ l9O4 >. +. No. 37l5 In Bank
E. H. Tucker, plaintiff and respondent. VS.. H.
E. Barnum as auditor of the county of Fres no.
defendant and appellant.
Mandamus: Plaintiff is Justice of the peace
of the fifth judicial township of Fresno county
and seeks writ of mandate commanding the
defendant, as auditor of said county, to allow
the plaintiffs claim for the sum of one hundred
and twenty dollars being his alleged compen-
sation for trying forty criminal cases during
the month of March, 1908. at the rate of three
dollars for each case The writ vvnc orontod
and defendant appeals
The court found that there are thirteen
judicial townships in the county, and that the
fifth township has population not to exceed
$780, and that the county belongs to the seventh
class; that the plaintitf during the month of
March, 1903. disposed of forty criminal actions
which had been commenced in his court: that
he was entitled to fees in the sum of S120 for
said services; that defer dant allowed the claim
for 500 and refused to allow any greater sum
Appellant contends that plaintiffs claim is
not proper charge for any greater sum than
800 as provided by subdivision 13 section 164
tStatutes 1901 at p. 7l2) amending the county
government act of 1897, subdivision l3 section
l66 Statutes 1897 p 5l5) by. which latter act
justices of the peace were given "the fees al
lowed by law"
A general fee bill Statutes 1895. D 260 fixed
the compensation of justices of the peace
throughout the state; For all services in a
criminal action or proceeding, whether on ex-
animation or trial three dollars, but limiting
the total fees to SevenJy-hve dollars in any one
month in mSdemeanor cases. Statutes 1895
p. 212). This act was considered in Dwyer VS.
Parker 115 Cal. 544, the effect of the decision
being to leave in force the fee bill established
by the act, but removing therefrom the limlta-
tion attempted TO be fixed upon the amount of
fees the justice might retain; and this act
thereafter fixed the compensation of justices of
the peace up to the time the county government
act OF 1901 went into effect, amending the act of
1897, which latter act as already stated pro-
vided that in counties of the ninth class Ito
which Fresno county then belonged) justices
should receive 1.-THE fees allowed by law" in
fact as fixed by the act of 1895. The act of 1901
provides in the fee bill of counties of the
seventh class, to which Fresno county belong
ed, as follows: Justices of the peace the fees
provided by law; provided that in townships of
5000 population or more, any or all charges in
criminal cases shall not exceed one hundred
and forty dollars per month for any Justice or
other ottcer exercising the judicial functions of
the justices OF the peace. They shall receive
the fees allowed by law in civil cases. In
townships having population of less than
6OOO they shall receive fees allowed by law not
to exceed ninety dollars per month for criminal
cases. They shall receive the fees allowed bv
law in civil cases"
The act of 1897 as amended in 1901 classifies
the counties of the state by population for the
purpose OF regulating the compensation of the
officers, and TO this no objection is made
Statutes 1901, PIP 685-6S7 eft sep But it is
claimed by plalntif that section l6I of the act
OF 1901 (p. 7l2 Sub 13l goes further than is war
ranted by the constitution and "subdivdeS the
class for the purpose of fixing a limitation of
toWnSh1p ohcerS OF Fresno county and places a
limitation on the earnings of some of the justices
not placed upon others The legislature has
attempted to regulate the compensation of the
township officers not simply according to their
duties, as aScertained by classification of
counties by population, but in accordance with
the population of the several townships within
the county, the effect of which is to allow n
justice of the peace in one of the classified
townships, one hundred and twenty dollars for
performing certain services in criminal cases
and to another justice of the peace in another
township ninety dollars for performing precise
ly similar services.
1t will be observed too that the act gives the
justices all the fees in civil cases regardless of
population.
The claim that the act of 1901 is void in its
entirety is not insisted upon, the question be-
ing otherwise settled in Beach VS.. Won Detten,
26 Cal. Dec 66 (73 Pac. Rep 1S7). 1t is however,
contended by plaintiff that the provisions of
the act in question violate article /, section II
OF the constitution that ''all laws of a general
nature shall have uniform operation;" also
article ", section 25 that 1.-THE legislature
shall not pass local or special laws in any of
| the following enumerated cases, that is to say {:
29th ahect1ng the fees or salary of any officer.
Thirty third Sc. In all other cases where a
general law can be made applicable;n also.
article XI, section D, that 1.-The legislature, by
general and uniform laws, shall provide for the
election and appointment in the several coun-
ties of boards of supervisors, Sherifs, county
clerks. district attorneys and such other county
township and municipal officers as public con-
venience may require, and shall prescribe their
duties and fix their terms of office. 1t shall
regulate the compensation of all such officers,
may classify the counties by population
We think respondents objection to Subdvis-
ion 13. section 164 of the act under considera-
tion, is well founded.
1t is recognized. indeed it has been said that
the conviction is irresistible that the constitu-
tion has prescribed single mode which must
be adopted in fixing the compensation of Off
GERS OF counties, and that mode is to adjust the
compensation in accordance with their respec-
tive duties under classification of counties
by population, made for this purpose. Dwyer
VS.. Parker lis Cal. 544.
Ii within view of the trainers of the conStitu-
tion this was the proper mode for fixing the
compensation of county officers, if there be no
constitutional inhibition to the contrary no
reason can be perceived why a like method of
classification of townships should be other than
proper. And, Notwithstanding the dictum in
Sanchez VS.. Fordyce, % Cal. Dec. 80 we can
discover no such inhibition in the cons stitution
BY the constitution the Legislature is required
to fix the compensation of county officers in Il
particular mode, but the method of fixing the
compensation of township officers is left op-
tional with 1.-THE exercise of the choice of
modes. however, being limited by the general
constitutional provisions, above quoted. The
constitution declares that the legislature shall
regulate the compenSationS of township as well
as of county officers in proportion to their du-
ties, and for this purpose may (muSD classify
fho finc htrr