Case Name: CITY OF BROOKLYN v. WOLZ
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1897-06-15
Citations: 46 N.Y.S. 217
Docket Number: 
Parties: CITY OF BROOKLYN v. WOLZ.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 46
Pages: 217–218

Head Matter:
(18 App. Div. 331.)
CITY OF BROOKLYN v. WOLZ.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
June 15, 1897.)
Justices of the Peace—Fees.
Laws 1880, c. 256, providing that no justice oí the peace or police justice in the city of Brooklyn should receive any fee or compensation, other than his salary, superseded section 3118 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allowing justices to retain fees in summary proceedings; and under said act and Laws 1881, c. 141, and the general revision of the laws affecting the city of Brooklyn (Laws 1888, c. 583), justices of the peace in Brooklyn are not entitled to such fees.
Submission of controversy on an agreed statement of facts between the city of Brooklyn and Charles Frederick Wolz.
Judgment for plaintiff.
Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and CULLEN, BARTLETT, HATCH, and BRADLEY, JJ.
William G. Cooke, for plaintiff.
John A. Anderson, for 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 63 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 or police justice in the city of Brooklyn should receive any fee or compensation other than his salará, 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 This statute was passed six days later than the Code, and superseded the provisions of the latter, although the Code was not to take effect until September 1st of that year. But even the question of which statute shall prevail is eliminated from the case by chapter 141 of the Laws of 1881, and also by the general revision of the local laws affecting the city of Brooklyn, passed in 1888 (chapter 583), which adopted and reenacted the statute of 1880 as amended in 1881. Judgment for the plaintiff on agreed statement of facts.