State v. Peck
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Perry Circuit Court. 1. The fee of the Circuit Attorney in this case, is controlled by the third clause of § 2, ~W. S., 619. 2. The defendant was indicted under § 27, W. S., 496. The indictment contained four counts, and charged the commission of four different and distinct offenses.
Read the full summary
Error to Perry Circuit Court. 1. The fee of the Circuit Attorney in this case, is controlled by the third clause of § 2, ~W. S., 619. 2. The defendant was indicted under § 27, W. S., 496. The indictment contained four counts, and charged the commission of four different and distinct offenses. He was con Dieted on three of the counts, and on each count, was fined seperately ; hence there were three convictions of the defendant, upon three offenses charged separately in three of the counts, and the Circuit Attorney was entitled to three fees of fire dollars each. (Borschenious vs. The People,…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, Judge
This case presents the question, whether the Circuit Attorney ought to be allowed more than one fee of five dollars for conviction on an indictment containing three counts, when the defendant is found guilty on each count and three separate fines assessed for disturbing the peace.
The court refused to allow more than one fee of five dollars and the plaintiff has brought the case here by writ of error.
The language of the third clause of Wagner’s Statutes § 2, p. 619, upon which the Circuit Attorney rests his right to several fees, reads as follows : “For conviction upon indictment when the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. NewkirkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- State v. BakerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1854
- Ex parte CraigSupreme Court of Missouri · 1854
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. CopelandSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- State ex rel. Anderson v. CallahanWashington Supreme Court · 1922
- In re Murphy & SpillaneMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886