Goad v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from White Circuit Court. Hance N. Hutton, Judge. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. At a former day of this term a judgment convicting appellant of violating the “blind tiger act” was affirmed. Appellant now moves to have the clerk retax costs and eliminate the fee of $25 for the deputy prosecuting attorney.
Read the full summary
Appeal from White Circuit Court. Hance N. Hutton, Judge. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. At a former day of this term a judgment convicting appellant of violating the “blind tiger act” was affirmed. Appellant now moves to have the clerk retax costs and eliminate the fee of $25 for the deputy prosecuting attorney. The question is, where the deputy prosecuting attorney has prosecuted the defendant in a “blind tiger” case before a justice of the peace and secured a conviction, will he be allowed a fee of $25, to be taxed as a part of the costs, where the defendant, after conviction before the justice,…
1Opinion of the Court
Wood, J.,
(after stating the facts.) Construing these acts together, we are of the opinion that the deputy prosecuting attorney, when present prosecuting before the justice, is entitled to a fee of $25 in case of conviction. Section 3 of the act of April 9, 1895, supra, indicates a purpose upon the part of the Legislature to provide specifically for a fee for the deputy prosecuting attorney in case of a conviction before the justice when he is present prosecuting. And we do not think he can be deprived of this fee because the- defendant appeals to the circuit court. This is the only…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Livingston v. United States Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1928
- St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931