The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1917-05-12
STATE SUES TRtHY TO
RECOVER EXCESS FEES
Norfolk Corporation Court Clerk
Collected 2f,461.O6 in Excess of
$1,000 Allowed by Law.
SAYS LAW is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Assistant Attorney General Leslie c.
Garnet Files Papers, Claiming That
Previous Ruling of Court VIII Al
rect Norfolk Case.

The first litigation to grow out of
the findings Of the fee commission.
which has been going over the re-
ports of fee officers for some time.
has been started by the state against
James V. Trehy. clerk of the corpo-
ration and law and chancery court
of Norfolk, to recover to the state
s2l,461.06 in excess fees collected oy
this officer during 1916. During that
year Mr.. Trehy's collections were SAL
961.06. and under the law he is re-
uuired to turn into the state treasury
all above $500 and his expenses.
Papers in the case have been for
warded to Norfolk by Assistant At
torney- General Leslie c. Garnet. and
were yesterday served on Mr.. Trehy
by the sheriff of the seaport city. The
notice is answerable IN the city cir
cult court of Richmond on June 4.
Mr. Trehy claims the bill requiring
him to refund to the state collec-
lions in excess OF the compensation
allowed him is unconstitutional. and
il is expected that a hard fought legal
battle will be waged While the law
has already been passed on by the
supreme court in the case of SANDS
against the wealth. It Is con-
sidered probable that this case WI!
find its way to the highest tribunal
OF the state.
Fees On PopulR ton Basis.
Under the amendment TO the law OF
1914. passed by the general assembly
of 1915. the compensauons OF all fee
officers OF the state are fixed in pro-
portion to the population of the city
or county in which the officer serves.
The law became effective January /.
1915 In cities having a population OF
$4,000 or more, under which class
Norfolk is included the maximum
: compensation for any fee officer must
not exceed $500 IN addition TO this
+! however. each officer ia allowed ex-
penses for the year 1916. which are
nos allowed to be greater than those
reported for the year 1913.
During 1915 Mr.. Trehy collected s2i,-
asloe in fees. from which should be
deducted his compensation and ex-
penses. II has been impossible to de-
termine what expenses should be al
lowed as no report was made by Mr..
Trehy for 1913 on which to establish
a basis The officer. II is said. has re-
fused to furnish state Auditor c. Lee
Moore with statement of his ex-
penses for either 1913 or last year. Mr..
Trehy has also refused TO sefund to
the state the fees collected by him
over and above the compensation al
lowed and expenses not in excess OF
those Of 1913, claiming that the law
is unconstitutional
Since the clerk refuses to give the
amount of his expenses. Mr.. Garrett
has instituted suit to recover to the
state all OF the fees collected by Mr..
Trehy in excess Of the So, 500 allow
ed or s2l4ei os. IT, when the first
papers in the case are answered be-
fore the circuit court here, the ex-
penses are stated by the clerk. they
will likely be deducted from the
amount OF the suit.
Fee Bill Upheld BY Court.
The fee bill. which Mr.. Trehy
claims is unconstitutional. fixes the
com pensatlon OF all fee officers in the
state. Under this legislation the
commonwealth some time ago
brought suit against William n.
sands examiner of records. OF this
district, 10 recover excess fees. and
the law was declared constitutional
by the supreme court of appeals.
The case against Trehy. clerk of the
Norfolk court. is the first of several
that will follow the findings OF the
fee commission. composed OF Govern or
Stuart, state Auditor G. Lee Moore,
and State Accountant Frank Smyth,
which has been working on the re-
ports for the past ten days. AS yet no
report has been made by the commits
sion, but ii is expected that one will
be forthcoming in the next few days.
1t is believed that the Trehy collec-
tions are the largest which to be made
by anv fee officer OF the state. In the
majority Of cases the excess OF collec-
ton is small. and in many instances.
it is said they are below the figures
allowed under the law. There are
about 500 fee officers in the state. and
the work OF the commission in check