Case Name: The City of Brooklyn, Plaintiff, v. Charles Frederick Wolz, Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1897
Citations: 18 A.D. 331
Docket Number: 
Parties: The City of Brooklyn, Plaintiff, v. Charles Frederick Wolz, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 331–332

Head Matter:
The City of Brooklyn, Plaintiff, v. Charles Frederick Wolz, Defendant.
The clerk of a justice of the peace of Brooklyn must account to the city for fees collected oh mahcing returns upon appeal.
Under the provisions of chapter 356 of the Laws of 1880, superseding as to the city of Brooklyn the provisions of section 3118 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and also under chapter 141 of the Laws of 1881, and by the general revision of local laws affecting the city of Brooklyn, and known as chapter 583 of the Laws of 1888, which adopted and re-enacted the statute of 1880, as amended in 1881, a clerk of a justice of the peace, or of a police justice in the city of Brooklyn, is required to collect and pay into the' city treasury all fees collected on making returns on appeal.
Submission of a controversy upon an agreed statement of facts, pursuant to section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
William G. Goolce, for the plaintiff.
John A. Anderson, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam :
There is little to decide in this case and still less to say about it. The defendant, and the justice of the peace, of whom he was the clerk, in 1894 and 1895 collected, as fees on making returns on appeals, the sum of $126, being $2 for each of sixty-three returns, some of which were appeals in summary proceedings. Under section 3118 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as under previous legislation, the justice was allowed to retain the fees in summary proceedings, but in no other cases. But by chapter 256 of the Laws of 1880 it was expressly enacted that no justice of the peace ór police justice in the city of Brooklyn should receive any fee or compensation other than his salary, and the. clerks of the courts were required to collect and pay all 'fees into the city treasury. This statute- was passed six days later than the Code and superseded the provisions of the latter, although the Code was not to take effect until September first of -that year. But even the question of which statute .shall prevail .is eliminated from the case by chapter 1.1-1 of the Laws of 1881,. and also by the general revision of local laws affecting the city of Brooklyn, passed in 1888 (Chap. -583), which adopted and,re-enacted the statute of 1880 as amended in 1881.
Judgment for the plaintiff on- agreed statement of facts.
All concurred.
Judgment for the plaintiff on agreed statement of facts.