{ "id": 1366117, "name": "Brown v. Welch", "name_abbreviation": "Brown v. Welch", "decision_date": "1921-12-19", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "142", "last_page": "145", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "151 Ark. 142" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "49 Ark. 361", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1309964 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/49/0361-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 Ark. 382", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1523358 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/85/0382-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 Ark. 487", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1324610 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "600" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/57/0487-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 Ark. 303", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1337140 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "305" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/110/0303-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 Ark. 437", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1538787 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/112/0437-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 N. W. 461", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "95 Mich. 543", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1533177 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mich/95/0543-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 Fed. 152", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 6734393 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/f/6/0152-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 N. W. 376", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "74 Iowa 292", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 2059089 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/74/0292-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 So. 560", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "24 Fla. 153", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Fla.", "case_ids": [ 1118150 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/fla/24/0153-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 662", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.N.S.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "128 Ark. 287", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1581935 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/128/0287-01" ] }, { "cite": "21 S. W. 519", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "92 Tenn. 289", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tenn.", "case_ids": [ 8538125 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/tenn/92/0289-01" ] }, { "cite": "138 Ark. 154", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1566865 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/138/0154-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 Ark. 383", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 378, "char_count": 6682, "ocr_confidence": 0.488, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.889158561965869e-07, "percentile": 0.8441745059267934 }, "sha256": "dda793e0200b41f8efe8ab1683962ed311c3e18ad83a6c960b980af361dab1f7", "simhash": "1:92c2c7d5fcf664ad", "word_count": 1191 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:18:51.844541+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Brown v. Welch." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McCulloch, C. J.\nAppellant is the deputy prosecuting attorney for the Western District of 'Clay County, and this appeal involves his right 'to demand and receive a fee on conviction in a criminal case in which he filed information before a justice of the peace, caused the arrest of the two appellees and attended the court on the day the trial was to be held, but the accused entered pleas of guilty.\nThe right of this officer to demand a fee depends upon the construction of the statute applicable to Clay and certain other counties. Section 8308, Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, provides that the deputy prosecuting attorney shall have authority to file with justices of the peace information charging persons with the commission of \u201cany offense against the laws of this State,\u201d and section 8309 reads as follows:\n\u201cWhen any person shall have been arrested under a warrant issued in accordance with the provisions of this act, it shall be the duty of the deputy prosecuting attorney to attend and prosecute such charge on behalf of the State, and he shall in like manner attend and prosecute on behalf of the State in any criminal case pending before any justice of the peace, or in the circuit court of his county, when so requested by any such justice of the peace or the prosecuting attorney of the circuit, and, in the event of a conviction, he shall be allowed the same fees as are now allowed by law to prosecuting attorneys in similar cases in the circuit court. Provided, that two may be appointed for Pulaski County.\u201d\nIt is clear, we think, that the prosecution of a case by the officer, even where a plea of guilty is interposed before the trial of the cause, entitles him to the fee. The cases cited on the brief of counsel show that the legal definition of the word \u201cprosecute,\u201d when used in this sense, includes a conviction under a plea of guilty where the officer performs the preliminary duties in instituting the prosecution and attends the trial for the purpose of conducting the prosecution. This is made additionally plain, too, by the fact that the statute in question amended the former statute, which provided that there should be no fee demanded by the prosecuting attorney except in case the accused entered a plea of \u201cnot guilty\u201d and demanded a trial. Those words were eliminated from the statute now in force in Clay County, and this omission is significant in construing the statute.\nCounsel for appellee rely on decisions of. this court in other cases where the statute is different; for instance, the case of Phillips County v. Jackson, 85 Ark. 383, is relied on, hut that case was decided under the statute (Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 6389) which limited the right of the deputy prosecuting attorney to demand a fee to cases where the accused entered a plea of \u201cnot guilty\u201d and demanded a trial. The digesters have brought forward into Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, as section 8310, Kirby\u2019s Digest, section 6390, relating to the duties of deputy prosecuting attorneys in case's before justices of the peace where the accused. have pleaded not guilty and secured the services of attorneys. We need not determine in this case the extent to which Kirby\u2019s Digest, section 6390, was affected by the later statute (\u2018Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, \u00a7 8309) further than to say that the law now applicable to this case entitles the officer to a fee when he attends and prosecutes on behalf of the State, whether the accused secures counsel or not, and even where there is a plea of guilty.\nIt follows that the circuit court erred in holding that appellant was not entitled to the fee demanded. Judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause is dismissed.", "type": "majority", "author": "McCulloch, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Shcme <\u00a3 Batten, for appellant.", "J. N. Moore, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Brown v. Welch.\nOpinion delivered December 19, 1921.\nProsecuting attorney \u2014 fee of deputy on plea of guilty. \u2014 Under Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, \u00a7 8309, providing that it shall be the duty of a deputy prosecuting attorney to prosecute criminal cases before justices of the peace, and that \u201cin the event of conviction, he shall be allowed the same fees as are now allowed by law to prosecuting attorneys in similar cases in the circuit court,\u201d held, that a deputy prosecuting attorney is entitled to a fee on conviction where he filed information which caused the arrest of the accused and attended the court on the day of trial, though accused pleaded guilty.\nAppeal from Clay Circuit Court, Western District; R. II. Dudley, Judge;\nreversed.\nShcme <\u00a3 Batten, for appellant.\nAppellant had the authority, and it was his duty, to file the informations {% 8308, C. & M. Digest). It was the duty of the justice of the peace to issue the warrants, Id. It was appellant\u2019s duty to attend and prosecute. \u00a7 8309, Id. He did attend for the purpose of prosecuting, and was present and prosecuting at the time the pleas of guilty were entered as much so as . if there had been a jury trial. He was entitled to the fees. C. & M. Dig. \u00a7\u00a7 8307. 4571; 138 Ark. 154; 92 Tenn. 289, 21 S. W. 519; 128 Ark. 287; 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 662 and note, p. 664; Ann. Cases, 1915-B, 283, 285, 289 and notes; 24 Fla. 153, 4 So. 560; 6 Words and Phrases \u201cProsecute,\u201d 5737, 5739; Bouvier\u2019s Law Diet., \u201cProsecute;\u201d 32 Cyc. 6186; 74 Iowa 292, 37 N. W. 376; 92 Tenn. 289, 21 S. W. 519; 2 Words & Phrases, \u201cConvict,\u201d \u201cConviction,\u201d pp. 1584, 1590; Bouvier\u2019s Law Diet.; 6 Fed. 152; 95 Mich. 543, 55 N. W. 461; 128 Ark. 287; Ann. Cases, 1915-B, supra.\nIn so far as pertains to Clay County, and the other counties mentioned in the act 220, Acts 1905 (\u00a7\u00a7 8307-9 C. & M. Digest), section 8310 of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest was repealed by that act. 112 Ark. 437; 88 Id. 324; 105 Id. 77. Section 8310 is still in force, and applicable to the other counties not included in act 220.\nIf the pleas of guilty and the payment of the fees were not under compulsion of the prosecution, then the payment was voluntary and cannot be recovered. 110 Ark. 303, 305; 86 Id. 175; 97 IT. S. 181; 98 Id. 541.\nJ. N. Moore, for appellees.\nThe fees demanded were not legal unless provided for by the plain letter of the law. A statute fixing a duty upon a public officer does not of itself fix a compensation for the discharge of that duty. 57 Ark. 487; 73 Id. 600; 138 Id. 154.\nSection 6390 Kirby\u2019s Digest (\u00a7 8310 Ci & M. Digest) was not amended, nor repealed, by the act of May 1, 1905 (\u00a7\u00a7 '6387, 6388 and 6389, Kirby\u2019s Digest). On a state of facts exactly the same as in this case, it has been held that under the above statute the deputy prosecuting attorney was not entitled to the fee. 85 Ark. 382.\n' Voluntary payment was not pleaded in the lower court but the actions were based on \u00a7 4632, C. & M. Digest, hence it is immaterial whether the payments were voluntary, or not. 49 Ark. 361." }, "file_name": "0142-01", "first_page_order": 168, "last_page_order": 171 }