{ "id": 8656091, "name": "GEORGE W. GUILFORD, Clerk of Beaufort Superior Court, v. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF BEAUFORT COUNTY", "name_abbreviation": "Guilford v. Board of Commissioners", "decision_date": "1897-02", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "23", "last_page": "29", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "120 N.C. 23" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "84 N. C., 243", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8690521 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/84/0243-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 N. C., 340", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8692371 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/70/0340-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 N. C., 853", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656515 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/119/0853-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 N. C., 120", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8686866 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/75/0120-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 N. C., 867", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656603 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/119/0867-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 N. C., 369", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651385 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/106/0369-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 N. C., 877", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652588 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/104/0877-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 N. C., 20", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8687426 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/20/0020-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 440, "char_count": 10243, "ocr_confidence": 0.442, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.568818583309903e-07, "percentile": 0.8160489279490812 }, "sha256": "a6ed67fadff00fec0d0cf37a722a4c922df2725017a7d56b2d80af4a3aff3c88", "simhash": "1:9473ec307fd755c6", "word_count": 1813 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:07:11.774475+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "GEORGE W. GUILFORD, Clerk of Beaufort Superior Court, v. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF BEAUFORT COUNTY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Clabk, J.:\nAt common law, in criminal actions, the sovereign neither paid nor recovered costs. State v. Manuel, 20 N. C., 20. The state and county are now liable for costs, but only in the cases expressly provided by statute. State v. Massey, 104 N. C., 877. Code, \u00a7 739, which, specifies the instances in which the county shall be liable either for half or for whole fees in criminal actions, is restricted to those in which \u201cthere is no prosecutor, and the defendant shall be acquitted or convicted, and unable to pay the costs, or a nolle prosequi be entered, or judgment arrested.\u201d There is no provision for taxing the county with any part of the fees of officers if the grand jury ignores the bill, or if the bill is quashed, nor if the prosecutor is taxed and proves unable to pay. Possibly, the legislature considered that it would entail great and unjustifiable expense if the county were taxed with the fees of officers in the frivolous and trivial prosecutions in w\u00fcich the grand jury refuse to find a true bill, or in which the judge should quash the indictment because not good in law. The judge properly held that the county was not liable for half fees in the case of State against Pilly, in which the grand jury had returned \u201cNot a true bill. \u201d\nAs to the second cause of action, for the half fees in the case of State against Selby, in which the defendant therein was bound over oy a justice of the peace for larceny, was \u201cconvicted and unable to pay the costs,\u201d and in which there was no prosecutor, rhe officers were entitled to half fees from the county, as to all legal fees. But the charge, \u00a3 \u2018Appeal from justice of the peace, 50 cents, and docketing same, 25 cents,\u201d is illegal. There was no appeal, for the justice \u201cbound over,\u201d having no final jurisdiction.' Code, \u00a7 3739, prescribes: \u201cAppeal from justice of the peace, including docketing, 50 cents.\u201d Acts 1885, Ch. 199, strikes out the words \u201cincluding docketing,\u201d but no fee is given for docketing an appeal, and none could be taken in any event. Besides, the fee for appeal from a justice is only allowed in civil cases and in those criminal cases in which the defendant or the prosecutor is taxed with the costs. Even though the defendant should be acquitted, or not. \u00a1pros'd in the upper court, the county is in no manner liable for fees. Code, \u00a7 895, expressly provides that in no case of which a justice of the peace has final jurisdiction (and only in such would an appeal lie) \u201cshall the county be liable to pay any cost.\u201d Merrimon v. Commissioners, 106 N. C., 369; State v. Shuffler, 119 N. C., 867.\nCode, \u00a7 86, prescribes that \u201cthe clerk shall keep the papers in each action in a separate roll or bundLe, and, at its termination, attach them together, properly labeled, and file them in the order of the date of final judgment.\u201d This is the \u201cfiling papers\u201d for which the clerk is entitled to charge a fee of 10 cents. Acts 1885, Ch. 199. If the statute had intended to give a fee of ten cents for filing each paper, it would have said so. Evidently, the fee was allowed for the single act of -\u201cfiling papers\u201d when the case is closed. There are no words used to support the contention that a separate fee of ten cents is to be allowed for each summons process, subpoena notice, and affidavit returned; nor is there any authority for the charge, ' \u2018 Recording in minutes, 25 cents.\u201d The clerk is required to keep \u201ca minute docket, in which shall be entered a record of all proceedings had in the court during the term, in the order in which they occur, and such other entries as the judge may direct to be made therein.\u201d Code, \u00a7 83(6). But there is no specific fee given therefor, either against defendants or the county. The language of section 3739 is: \u201cRecording and copying papers, per copy sheet, 10 cents. \u2019 This refers to recording and copying papers, and not to keeping the minutes or proceedings of the court. When compensation for officers is made by fees, they are not paid for each and every service performed; but for certain designated services prescribed fees are allowed, the aggregate of which the legislature deems would be sufficient for the discharge of all the duties of the office. Indeed, Code, section 3739, provides that \u201cthe fees of the clerk of the Superior court shall be as follows, and no other, namely,\u201d etc.\nThe liability of the county for state witnesses though not for half fees of officers, when the prosecutor is unable to pay, is caused by the difference between the wording of section 739 and that of sections 740 and 1204 (and these last are safeguarded against abuse by sections 743, 744, and 746). Pegram v. Commissioners, 75 N. C., 120. Butthelia-bility of thecountyfoi defendant\u2019s witnesses is restricted to the same cases in which the county is responsible for half fees to officers, except that the county is not liable to defendant\u2019s witnesses where he is convicted and unable to pay. An appeal in the matter of costs lies in cases of this kind. State v. Horne, 119 N. C., 853; State v. Commissioner of Pamlico Co., ante.\nIt admits of some question whether this action can be maintained as brought. Certainly it would have been more regular to have had the costs taxed or retaxed in the original cause, and an appeal from the judgment thereon. Moore v. Commissioner, 70 N. C., 340; Belden v. Snead, 84 N. C., 243. But the objection is not raised by either party, and we do not pass upon it.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Clabk, J.:" } ], "attorneys": [ "Mr. Charles F. Warren, for defendants.", "No counsel, oontra." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "GEORGE W. GUILFORD, Clerk of Beaufort Superior Court, v. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF BEAUFORT COUNTY.\nAction for Oosts \u2014 Go'sts in Criminal Cause \u2014 Liability of County \u2014 Fees of Clerk of Superior Court.\n1. The State and county are liable for costs only in the cases expressly provided by statute.\n2. A county cannot be taxed, under section 739 of the Code,' with any part of the fees of the clerk or other officers in criminal actions if the grand jury returns \u201cnot a true bill.\u201d\n3. When a defendant is bound over to the Superior Court by a justice of the peace, the clerk of the Superior Court is not entitled to the fee of 50 cents allowed by Ch. 199, Acts of 1885, for \u201cappeal from justice of the peace.\u201d\n4. The fee of ten cents allowed the clerk of the Superior Court by Chapter 199, Acts of 1885, for \u201cfiling papers,\u201d is for filing all the papers in an action after final judgment, as prescribed by Section 86 of The Code, and not for filing each paper in a case.\n5. The clerk of the Superior Court is not entitled under section 3739 of The Code to a specific fee for recording the proceedings of a cause in the. minute docket of the Court, as required by section 83 (6) of The Code.\n6. The liability of a county for defendant\u2019s witnesses is restricted to the same cases in which the county is responsible for half fees to officers, except that the Court is not liable to defendant\u2019s witnesses where he is convicted and unable to pay.\n7. An appeal lies from a judgment involving merely the taxation of a bill of costs.\nCivil actioN, commenced before a Justice of the Peace by George W. Guilford, against the Board of Commissioners of Bean-fort County to recover fees as clerk of the Superior Court, heard on appeal and on complaint and demurrer before Bryan, J., at Spring Term, 1897, of Beaufort Superior Court.\nThe complaint was as follows:\n\u201cThe plaintiff, complaining of the defendants, alleges: (1) That plaintiff is the clerk of the Superior Court of Beaufort county, N. C. (2) That at the Fall term, 1896, of the Superior court of Beaufort county, a bill of indictment was sent before the grand jury of said county, charging one George Pilly with larceny, and was returned by t-he grand jury \u2018Not a true bill.5 That there was no prosecutor in the said case. That the following fees are due plaintiff in said criminal action, to-wit:\nIndictment,.-------- $ .60\nDocketing, - -- -- -- -- -- -- .25\nSis subpoenas, ------------ .90\nPiling papers, .20\nPreparing bill of costs, --------- .25\nRecording in minutes, --------- .50\nMaking, - - - -.- - $2.70\n\u201cThat the defendants are liable to plaintiff for one-half of the said bill of costs, under.section 739 of the Code. That there is due plaintiff the sum of one dollar and thirty-fife cents on said bill of costs by defendants. That defendants have refused to pay the said sum, on the ground that the county is not liable in cases where the grand jury has returned \u2018Not a true bill.\u2019 (3) That at Fall term, 1896, of the Superior Court of Beaufort county, one Elijah Selby, who had been bound over by a justice of the peace to said term, charged with larceny, was indicted ancl convicted and sentenced to the state prison for the term of two years. That among other fees due the plaintiff in the said criminal action are the following, to-wit:\nAppeal from justice of the peace, - - - - - - $ .50\nDocketing same,.------ .25\nFiling papers, ------------ .20\nRecording in minutes.- - - - .25\nMaking - - - -.- - - - $1.20\n\u2014\u201cThat the defendants are indebted to plaintiff for one-half of the fees above specified. That the defendants have refused to pay the said bill of costs, or the one-half thereof for which the county is liable, on the following grounds, to-wit: First. That the said Elijah Selby did not appeal from the justice of the peace to the Superior Court, but was bound o\\er by the justice of the peace to appear at said term, and that the fee. of fifty cents for an appeal and twenty-five cents for docketing the same is not due plaintiff in said criminal action. Second. That the plaintiff is not entitled to charge the fee of twenty cents for filing papers, but defendants insist that a single fee of ten cents only can be charged for filing papers in each case, and not a fee of ten cents for firing each papef. Third. That the plaintiff is not entitled to a specific fee of twenty-five cents, or any other specific sum, for recording in the minutes. \"Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment against the defendants for the sum of one dollar and thirty-five cents, being half fees in state against George Pilly, as set forth in section 2 of this complaint, and for the sum of sixty cents, being half fees in state against Elijah Selby. \u2019 \u2019\nThe demurrer was sustained and plaintiff appealed.\nMr. Charles F. Warren, for defendants.\nNo counsel, oontra." }, "file_name": "0023-01", "first_page_order": 51, "last_page_order": 57 }