Phillips County v. Pillow
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Phillips Circuit Court. Hon. W. H. Cate, Judge, on exchange. To give any effect to the section, it must be construed as was done by the county court. If it does not mean that it means nothing, as the fee bills of that officer nowhere provide for the payment of any amount to him for making returns on subpoenas.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Phillips Circuit Court. Hon. W. H. Cate, Judge, on exchange. To give any effect to the section, it must be construed as was done by the county court. If it does not mean that it means nothing, as the fee bills of that officer nowhere provide for the payment of any amount to him for making returns on subpoenas. What else could the legislature have possibly meant when they say “more than two returns ?” An officer was never before or after the passage of the act allowed for even one return on a subpoena; then what was the use or sense of limiting his pay to two returns, when both…
1Opinion of the Court
Smith, J.,The sheriff presented to the county court his bill for services in subpoenaing seven witnesses in the case of the state of Arkansas against Richard Dortch, charged with murder. Dortch was convicted and an execution for the costs-was returned nulla bona. This made the county liable for all legitimate fees arising out of his prosecution. The county court allowed fees and mileage for subpoenaing two witnesses only, rejecting the remainder of the bill. The sheriff appealed to the circuit court, where judgment was rendered in his favor for the whole of his demand.
Fees of sheriff ia…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Waller v. HarrisNew York Supreme Court · 1838
3Cited by5 opinions
- Wiseman, Comm. Revenues v. AffolterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936
- Hines v. MillsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
- Parker v. WilsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Little Rock, Hot Springs & Texas Railway Co. v. SpencerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1898
- Whitehead v. BreckenridgeCourt Of Appeals Of Indian Territory · 1904