{
  "id": 1322227,
  "name": "Pearce v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pearce v. State",
  "decision_date": "1892-01-30",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "387",
  "last_page": "388",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "55 Ark. 387"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "46 Ark., 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1890487
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/46/0137-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 Ark., 442",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1888698
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/47/0442-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 Ark., 56",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1892011
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/45/0056-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 199,
    "char_count": 2682,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.763,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.2166116410079403e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8668254404021238
    },
    "sha256": "5d63809fc03f438e4d1a4d46d93f0a065bda8a205db9260b129a368ef4effb12",
    "simhash": "1:56e0d6f4c9ba540f",
    "word_count": 451
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:46:22.231955+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Pearce v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Cockrill, C. J.\nThe question now presented arises upon motion to tax a fee of $20 for the benefit of the prosecuting attorney who successfully conducted this' proceeding in bastardy for the State in the circuit court and here. The statute authorizes the taxing of such a fee upon the affirmance of a judgment of conviction for a misdemeanor. Mansf. Dig., secs. 2469-2471. But bastardy is a civil proceeding, and not a criminal prosecution. Chambers v. State, 45 Ark., 56. \u201c Indemnity and protection of the counties against the burden of supporting the child, and not the punishment of the father, are the objects contemplated by the statute.\u201d Ib.\nSection 458 of Mansfield\u2019s Digest provides that \u201c the judge of the county court shall be allowed such fees in all cases of bastardy as were allowed to justices of the peace under the law when justices of the peace had jurisdiction of bastardy cases, and [that] the other officers shall.be allowed such fees as are by law allowed to sheriffs, coroners, constables and clerks in criminal cases.\u201d This section makes no-provision for the prosecuting attorney. It may have been an oversight; but, as was said in Fanning v. State, 47 Ark., 442, \u201c those who serve the public must rest content with the compensation provided by the plain letter of the law.\u201d Another section requires- the prosecuting attorney to\u00abconduct such proceedings in the circuit court (sec. 454), and for that service section 3233, which provides for compensating him. for any judgment obtained there, doubtless gives him a fee. State v. Jackson, 46 Ark., 137. But this is notan applicacation to' retax the costs allowed in the circuit court, but only to tax an attorney\u2019s fee for services rendered here. We-are referred to section 3787, Mansf. Dig., as authority to tax the fee. It is as follows : \u201c In all cases where any officer or other person is required to perform any duty for which no fees are allowed by law, he shall be entitled to receive such pay as would be allowed for similar services.\u201d But the prosecuting attorney is required to perform no similar service in this court. No docket fee is allowed except in a misdemeanor, and this case does not belong to that class. Chambers v. State, 45 Ark., supra.\nLet the motion be denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Cockrill, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jos. W. Stayton, Prosecuting Attorney, pro se."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Pearce v. State.\nDecided January 30, 1892.\n_Prosecuting attorney\u2014Fee\u2014Bastardy.\nA bastardy proceeding being a civil action, a prosecuting attorney who, on behalf of the State, successfully conducts such an action in the circuit court is not entitled, upon affirmance, to the docket fee allowed in misdemeanor cases.\nAPPEAL from Independence Circuit Court.\nJames W. Butler, Judge.\nJos. W. Stayton, Prosecuting Attorney, pro se."
  },
  "file_name": "0387-01",
  "first_page_order": 411,
  "last_page_order": 412
}