| Show AN IMPORTANT DECISION tha must pay the witness and juror fees judge henderson in the supreme court last week read the opinion of the court in the case of lewis akel sey vs george D court commissioner the plaintiff commenced proceedings far a mandamus to compel the defendant to pay due from the territory for fees as a witness on the part of the leopla in a criminal case the case came on for trial on the day of december 1888 and the issues were found by the court in favor of the plaintiff and a final judgment entered awarding a peremptory writ with costs prom this judgment the defendant appeals on the ath day of march 1888 an act was passed by the legislature making various appropriations and among othere for the payment of witnesses and jurors in criminal cases in the district courts of the territory and providing that the amount shall be drawn upon vouchers duly authenticated for services as in Territorial civil and criminal cases and for witnesses in criminal cases in which the territory is liable on the sume day another act was past providing for the payment of jurors witnesses and phonographic reporters and creating and defining the duties of court commissioners the services for which the certificates in this case were issued were rendered and the certificates issued in february 1888 and before these acts were passed it ia claimed by the defendant that the two acts of 1888 are parti materia and should be construed together and that while the appropriation appears to be for all the witnesses and jurors fees for 1888 and 1889 ahat when it is construed to be an oppre prin tion only to the amount covered by the rate specified in section lahat tho commissioner has no power beyond it we admit that the acts should bo construed together they were passed on the same day by the same authority and on the same subject we have no doubt that the appropriation made is the fund upon which the commissioner shall draw the appropriation is made for all the witnesses and jurors fees for which the territory is liable during the years 1888 and 1889 and we are unable to discover anything in the act which indicates that it is meant as an appropriation to apply upon a greater liability but the contrary intention to thereby discharge the entire obligation of the territory is apparent jt is a matter of which this court will ake judicial knowledge and is apparent from past legislation that prior to the acts in question there never has been any appropriation for paying witnesses and jurors as the services were rendered but that each legis has made appropriations to pay the amount of outstanding certificates as ascertained by a committee of the legislature we think it is apparent that the legislature intended to provide for the payment of all certificates for which the territory was liable after the dale named and commit their payment to idesa commissioner who should be located near the several courts and could make proper inquiry concerning them but services rendered after january and before the passage of these acts should be paid according to the law then in force and that ahe judgment of the court below in thi respect was right tho court below gave judgment against the defendant for costs A judgment should be entered in this court remanding the case to the court below with instructions to BO modify the judgment appealed from as to provide for payment of costs out of the funds in the defendants hands as commissioner neither party should recover costs in this court |
