Montpelier examiner. [volume] (Montpelier, Idaho) 1895-1937, 1917-07-06
PAY FOR JURORS In MINOR
COURTS NOT MANDATORY

The law regarding the collection
and payment Oh jurors xeea tn pro-
bate and Justice courts brings about
an undesirable condition and there
seems to be nothing I'm the law that
makes guarantee or payment Of such
fees mandatory. A mutual agree
ment between parties BY which o de-
post can be made to guarantee pay
ment OF fees offers one solution, the
attorney generals opinion says.
There il general interest In this
subject due TO the fact that judges
of probate and Justice courts find 1t
difficult and embarrassing regarding
the calling or 5uries to try cases.
The matter was placed before the
attorney general by Lewis A. Lee,
probate Judge of Idaho Falls. In
reply, Assistant Attorney General
]. P. Pope wrote Judge Lee ~ fol-
lows:
I'VE have your letter of the 25th
inst. requesting our opinion upon a
vexattous question with regard to the
payment OF jury fees In probate and
justice courts. Your question 10, In
substance:
IL there any legitimate way, by
requiring deposit In advance by
the parties litigant, or otherwise, by
which probate Judge or justice OF
the peace may protect himself and
secure the payment of the legal fees
of jurors serving IN his court3'
I'VE keenly appreciate the diff
culties of probate judges and JUST
ices OF the peace arising out OF this
question. You state that, In some
cases, You have reason to believe
that the verdicts OF jurors have been
influenced by the uncertainty OF
their compensation from one or the
other Of the parties litigant, and that
you have been harrassed beyond
measure by the demands of jurors
insisting upon compensation for their
services. This Ia an unfortunate sit
uation.
No Authority Conveyed
Under the law, however, there
seems to be no authority for q pro-
bate Judge or justice OF the peace
to require deposit in advance from
the litigants, or either of them, suf-
ficient to cover the jury fees and
thus insure the payment OF such
fees. Section z OF article of the
constitution guarantees that ths
right Of trial BY jury shall remain
inviolate. Section 613S OF the re-
vised codes provides that jurors IL
civil and criminal cases In the pro
bate and justices courts are entitled
to receive So per day for each da!
actually engaged in the trial of |
case, and rs cents per mile one way
Such mileage and per diem In al
civil cases must be entered and taxes
up as costs against the losing party
Our supreme court has held, in tn
case Of Randall versus Kelsey. Id
aho, 168. that probate and justices
courts have no power to require lit
igants to deposit jurors fees as /
condition precedent to the right o
a trial by jury. This would seem t
settle the question.
1.-THE jury fees are taxed up a
costs and become part of the 1udg
ment. II the judgment is uncollect
ible there seems to be no way to DC
cure the payment of the jury fees
If an appeal be taken to the distric
court, bond is required to be give
sufficient to cover all costs, includ
ing the jury fees The jurors woul
simply have to wait until the case
finally adjudicatede TO get their fees
unless one or the other Of the pal
ties litigant should advance sue
fees.
THE law IN this respect Ii In .
undesirable condition. Whereve
the probate court or the justice {
the peace can get the parties to agre
ana deposit sufficient amount &c
jury fees, such arrangement woul
be o practical solution OF the diff
Guilty. Where no such arrangemer
can be made there il no way, undx
the law, to remove the dtfficultis
which you have suggested"