Chafin v. Cnty. of Waukesha

Decision Date03 March 1885
PartiesCHAFIN v. COUNTY OF WAUKESHA.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from circuit court, Waukesha county.

On the trial the circuit court found, as matters of fact, in effect, that the plaintiff was elected a justice of the peace by the town of Waukesha, and held that office from November 1, 1882, to May 1, 1883, and as such performed services during that time in trying cases for drunkenness occurring in the village of Waukesha, in violation of section 1561, Rev. St., under which the same were prosecuted, and his fees charged therefor amounted to $41.84; that the plaintiff was elected a justice of the peace by the village of Waukesha, and held that office from May 1, 1883, to November 1, 1883, and as such performed services during that time in trying cases for drunkenness occurring outside of the village of Waukesha, and prosecuted under section 1561, Rev. St., and his fees charged therefor amounted to $5.32; that during the same time the plaintiff, as such justice, performed services in trying cases for drunkenness occurring in the village, in violation of chapter 7 of the ordinances of the village, and prosecuted thereunder, and his fees charged therefor amounted to $149.44; that the several items charged for in the plaintiff's complaint were correct and just; that an itemized account for said three several claims, amounting in the aggregate to $196.60, was duly presented to the board of supervisors of said county some time prior to November 30, 1883, and that said account, and the whole thereof, was on said last-mentioned day disallowed; and, as conclusions of law, the court found in effect that the defendant was liable for each item of the plaintiff's fees, as such justice, in each of said several claims; that the plaintiff was entitled to recover of the defendant the sum of $196.60, the aggregate amount of said claims, with interest thereon from November 3, 1883, and ordered judgment accordingly, with costs. From the judgment entered thereon the defendant brings this appeal.E. W. Chafin, for respondent.

Warham Parks and W. H. Thomas, for appellant.

CASSODAY, J.

The claim for $41.84 and the claim for $5.32 are each for fees accruing to the plaintiff, as a justice of the peace, on prosecutions in the name of the state, under section 1561, Rev. St. By section 679, Rev. St., the plaintiff, as justice, was required, on or before the first Monday of November in each year, to forward to the county clerk a correct statement of all actions or proceedings had before him, during the year next preceding, in which the county had become liable for costs; the amount of costs in detail in each case; and what items, if any, had been paid; and the amount thereof. The same section prohibited any justice, neglecting to make and return such statement within the time prescribed, from receiving any compensation from the county for any services rendered by him in any criminal case or proceeding during such year. By the amendment to that section of April 8, 1883, the justice was required to annex and file with such statement his sworn statement of all criminal actions tried before him during the same period, in which the defendant, or any defendant, had been convicted, reciting therein that the certificate of conviction in each case had been filed as required; and the amendment further provided that no bill of any justice of the peace shall be allowed, in whole or in part, unless accompanied by such sworn statement, nor unless all such certificates of conviction have been filed.” Chapter 188, Laws 1883. The county must pay such justice for making and filing such statements and certificates. Section 696, Rev. St. The statute contemplates the payment of fees to the justice for his services in criminal cases, (section 3774, Rev. St.;) and that all fines collected by him in such cases be paid over to the county. Section 4772, Rev. St. The liability of the county for such services, thus assumed by the statute, is thus recognized, if not expressly declared, as an absolute statutory liability.

This construction is supported by the repeated decisions of this court to the effect that the county is liable for the necessary expenses and services incident to the administration of the criminal laws of the state. Carpenter v. Dane Co. 9 Wis. 274;Dane Co. v. Smith, 13 Wis. 585;Hall v. Washington Co. 2 G. Greene, (Iowa,) 473; Bright v. Supervisors, 18 Johns. 242. See Sanborn & Berryman's notes to section 677, Rev. St. Some of the decisions cited were made prior to the enactment of chapter 257, Laws 1862, and chapter 31, Laws 1869, from which the revisors took section 679 and section 696, supra; clearly indicating that the legislature, at the time of such enactments, recognized the existence of such liability. It follows that the county is liable for the aggregate amount of the two sums above named, to-wit, the sum of $47.16, with interest thereon from November 3, 1883.

As to the plaintiff's claim for $149.44, for services in trying cases for drunkenness occurring in the village in violation of the village ordinance, and prosecuted thereunder, an entirely different question is presented, and was entitled “An ordinance to suppress intemperance.” The power to enact the ordinance seems to have been given by the charter. Section 18, c. 30, P. & L. Laws 1859. That ordinance went into effect March 19, 1878. Under section 1561, Rev. St., (section 17, c. 179, Laws 1874,) “any person found in a public place in such a state of intoxication as to disturb others, or unable, by reason of his condition, to care for his own safety or the safety of others, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not exceeding ten dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than five days, or by both such fine and imprisonment; but this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • City of Milwaukee v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1927
    ...or even of the state, does not change the nature of the action. Olson v. Hawkins, 135 Wis. 394, 399. 116 N. W. 18;Chafin v. Waukesha County, 62 Wis. 463, 468, 22 N. W. 732. [5][6][7] The fact that the ordinance provides that the offense “shall be punished by a fine” does not necessarily lea......
  • State ex rel. Cooper v. Brazee
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • May 11, 1909
    ...798;Milwaukee v. Weiss, 93 Wis. 653, 68 N. W. 390; section 3294, St. 1898; Stoltman v. Lake, 124 Wis. 462, 102 N. W. 920;Chafin v. Waukesha, 62 Wis. 463, 22 N. W. 732. Among other references upon the part of the respondent were the following: State ex rel. v. Rock County, 134 Wis. 301;State......
  • Fortune v. Incorporated Town of Wilburton
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • October 17, 1905
    ... ... Knox, 74 Mo. 79; ... In re Miller, 44 Mo.App. 125; Bristol v ... Burrow, 73 Tenn. 128; Chafin v. Waukesha ... County, 62 Wis. 463, 467, 22 N.W. 732; Sutton v ... McConnell, 46 Wis. 269, 50 ... ...
  • W. W. Kimball Co. v. Baker
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • March 3, 1885
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT