Amador ledger. (Jackson, Amador County, Calif.) 1875-19??, 1909-03-26
SHERIFFS CANNOT
no $3.50 CHARGE MILEAGE
Barred From This Revenue BY
s Yolo Decision.

Judge Hawkins of Yolo county,
rendered an important decision to-.
day which is of special interest TO
sheriffs all over the state. because
some of the questions are said to be
new and have not been passed upon
by the upperc ourts. The superior
court of Modoc, in n case involving
similar issues, rendered a decision In
harmony with that of Judge Haw-
kins, while the judge of the superior
court of Mendocino has taken differ
rent view of the matter.
The case is entitled Sam Montgom-
cry vs.. County of Yolo, and involves
the legality of the charge of the
sheriff Tor, serving subpoenas in
criminal cases. for expenses incurred
In attending to criminal business of
the county. IL was commenced in
the justice court. and appealed to
the superior court.
Sheriff Montgomery gets Judgment
for $40. 80, but in reality the decision
is against him for the charges for
mileage is disallowed. and that Is
practically the only issue in the case.
In fact, the district attorney admitted
that ali other items in the bill were
legal.
Judge Hawkins holds that the
mater ial parts of the statutes bearing
on the case are found in Sections
1900, 1890 and AZ 81 of the Political
Code. Section 1900 sets forth what
fees the sheriff is entitled to charge
and receive. Section 4290 says the
salaries and fees provided in the title
shall be in full compensation for all
services rendered, etc. Section 1892
provides that all officers shall charge
and collect for the use of their re-
spective counties and pay into the
county treasury the fees allowed by
law except where such fees ora per-
centage thereof are allowed such
officers. and excepting also such fees
as are charge against the county.
Another provision in Section 1890,
and it was on this provision that the
plaintiff relied, says the board of
supervisors shall allow the sheriff his
necessary expenses for pursuing
criminals or transacting any criminal
business. Ihe sheriff may retain for
his own use the mileage for services
of papers or process issued by any
court of this state.
The court virtally holds that the
words 'tmay retain for his own use
the mileage for service of process
issued by any court in the state, APP
plies only in civil cases. In support
of this. section 4300 is quoted. 1t
provides when this mileage is charge
able. but it contains no provision
authorizing the charge against the
county. In civil cases these fees must
be paid to the sheriff and having
received them he may retain them.
Section 430T provides what are
county charges and provides for the
lOO0bbul III oho
pursuit Of prisoners charged with or
convicted of crime and committed
therefor to the county Jail. and for
other services in relation to criminal
proceedings for which no specific
compensation is prescribed by law.
In the case of the service of subpenas
there is other specific compensation,
to wit, the salary and the expenses,
but the court finds no provision for
making the mileage of the sheriff
charge against the county.
The court holds that the provision
authorizing the sheriff to retain, ETC.,
does not permit him to collect mile
age from the county. In other words,
the sheriff can only retain fees and
mileage where they are paid by liti-
gants.
The decision is veryvoluminous and
seems to consider every phase of the
question. The Sac. Bee.