Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-01-29
"A A A. WINS FEE SYSTEM FIGHT
I'm POTOMAC, VA, TRAFFIC CASE
Apparent Defeat Turned to Victory by
]; Courts Recommending Change
In State Law.

, sation for a magistrate in the event of
| acquittal
Precedent Is Denied.
The Ohio case was relied upon by
| the association as one of its strongest
points In the Virginia trial, but the
Richmond court held that 1t did not
apply in the Potomac case.
Chief Justice Taft decided the Ohio
case. which involved prohibition
charge, on March Z, of last year. In
his opinion he called attention to the
fact that there was no case under the
old English code, prior to the separa-
ton of the American colonies from the
mother country. showing q pracuce
that inferior judicial officers were de-
ienGant for receiving their compensa-
ton.
He added: Indeed in analogous
cases it is very clear that the slightest
pecuniary interest of any officer, judi
cial or uuasi-judicial, in the resolving
of the subject matter which he was to
decide rendered the decision voidable.'
He cited many cases along this line.
Judge Jesse F. West, who rendered
the Virginia decision, commented on
the Supreme Courts ruling in the Ohio
case and cited various points In which.
he said, that case differed from the one
in hand.
Reviews Ohio Case.
In our view," Judge West stated.
"the instant case Is easily distinguished
from the Tumey case"
Tumey was tried by mayor Fugn %
the town of North College Hill. In
Hamilton County, Ohio. for unlawfully
possessing intoxicating liquor outside OF
the town and fined 500 and ordered TO
be imprisoned until the fine and costs
were paid.
The mayor was acting under the
State prohibition law and town ordi-
nance adopted in pursuance OF the
state law. The mayors fee in case OF
a conviction was Sl2 and in case OF
acouittal he received no compensation
at all. His Jurisdiction extended 10 All
violations of the penal laws through
Hamilton County, including the CITY OF
Cincinnati.
The Ohio mayor. furthermore. under
the Ohio General Code, was permit
ted tn exercise final jurisdiction in GER
tain prohibition cases without AFFORD.
ING the defendant the right OF a trial
hv iury. In case of conviction the de-
fendant could file q bill OF exceptions
and anplv to the court OF Common
pleas for a writ of error. The appeliaue
court. however, was empowered 10 set
aside the conviction only because OF
errors of law and 1t did not take into
consideration the facts Of the case as
presented in the testimony.
Laws i'm Cases Differ.
"rrnder the law in the instant case, "
Judge West ruled, 1.-The jurisdiction OF
the mayor extends TO the vioiation Oh
the laws of the State only within the
corporate limits OF the town ana Lor
one mile bevorld. and to all cases aris-
ing under the ordinances and oy-iaws
of the town OF Potomac. The NUMBER
of cases tried and the amount OF nnes
imposed by the mayor OF the town OF
Potomac under the State law Is mucn
smaller than the number OF cases trieo
and the amount OF fines imposed py
the MAYOR of the town Of North Col
iege Hill, Ohio, for violations OF State
THE town Of Potomac receives no
part of the fines imposed for VIOLATIONS
Of state laws. while the town OF North
College Hill receives one-half OF sucn
fines imposed by the mayor"
Judge West then refers TO the rea-
sons given py CneLs sJueeice AoN ~
his opinion that Tumey was denied
| due process OF law In this connec-
ton the Chief Justice said:
THE inducement Is offered OF divid-
ing between the State and the village
the large fines provided by the law for
| its violations. The trial Is to be had
before a mayor without jury, without
opportunity for retrial. and with re-
view confined to questions Of law pre-
scented by bills Of exceptions. with no
opportunity by the reviewing court TO
set aside the Judgment on the weighing
of evidence, unless II should appear as
to indicate mistake. bias or wilfuI dis
regard Of duty by the trial court"
None Of these conditions existed In
the Potomac case, Judge West held. He