Adam v. Wright

• Citation: 11 S.E. 893,84 Ga. 720
• Parties: Adam, Treasurer. v. Wright, Solicitor General.
• Decision Date: 31 March 1890
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

11 S.E. 893

84 Ga. 720

Adam, Treasurer.

v.Wright, Solicitor General.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 31, 1890.

Constitutional Law—Special Laws—Abrogation and Repeal of Statutes.

1. Acts Ga. 1873, p. 225, which provides for the payment of insolvent criminal costs due the solicitor general of the Augusta judicial circuit out of the county treasury of the respective counties, on the recommendation of the grand jury and an order of the superior judge, is not abrogated by that provision of Const. Ga. 1877, (Code, § 5027,) prohibiting special legislation, since article 12, § 1, par. 4, keeps in force local acts passed for the benefit of counties, cities, and towns, not inconsistent with the constitution.

2. Const. Ga. 1877, art. 7, § 6, par. 2, which prohibits counties from exercising the taxing power except (inter alia) to raise funds for the payment of "expenses of courts, " does not abrogate the above act of 1873, since the insolvent costs due the solicitor general, after being allowed by the grand jury, are "expenses of court."

3. Acts Ga. 1878-79, p. 405, which provided for the repeal of the above act of 1873, contained a proviso that it should not go into effect until after the expiration of the term of the then solicitor general. Before that time, the general assembly, by Acts Ga. 1880-81, p. 650, repealed the repealing act of 1879. Held, that the repealing act of 1879, having been itself repealed before it went into operation, did not take effect on the act of 1873, and that the latter act continued of force by virtue of its original enactment, and not because of its revival by the act of 1880.

4. The act of 1880, which in its title declares that it is an act to repeal the act of 1879, describing it, and which in its body contains the full titie of that act, and repeals the same, does not violate Const. Ga. art. 3, § 7, par. 17, (Code, § 5076,) which declares that no law shall be repealed by mere reference to its title, but that the repealing act shall distinctly describe the law to be repealed.

Error from superior court, Richmond county; Roney, Judge.

Salem Dutcher and Harper & Bro., for plaintiff in error.

J. C. C. Black, Jos. B. Cumming; and Foster & Lamar, for defendant in error.

Blandford, J. Wright, solicitor general, presented his petiton for mandamus against the plaintiff in error, as treasurer of Richmond county, in which he alleged that there was a certain sum due him, as solicitor general, for insolvent costs, which remained unpaid by reason of a deficiency of funds arising from fines and forfeitures; that his bill for such costs had been allowed by the judge of the superior court, and its payment recommended by the grand jury. A mandamus absolute was issued by the judge of the superior court, requiring the plaintiff in error, as treasurer, to pay the amount so allowed the defendant in error.

The question in this case is whether said solicitor general is entitled to be paid his insolvent costs out of any funds in the county treasury, when the grand jury so recommends, and the judge of the superior court so orders. The solicitor general bases his claim to be so paid on "An act to provide for the payment of certain insolvent criminal costs in the Augusta judicial circuit, "approved February 15, 1873, (Acts 1873, p. 225.) It was contended by counsel for the plaintiff in error that this act of 1873 was abrogated by the constitution of 1877. The act is as follows: " Whenever, at any term of the superior court of any county of the Augusta judicial circuit, a majority of the grand jury shall so recommend, the judge of the superior court shall grant to the solicitor general an order upon the county treasurer for the payment of any account for insolvent criminal costs so recommended to be paid, and it shall be the duty of the county treasurer of said county to pay the same out of any money in the treasury thereof: provided nothing in this act shall be deemed or considered mandatory to the grand jury; but they shall have full discretion to recommend or not, as they see proper, the payment of said criminal and insolvent costs." This act was passed under the constitution of 1868, which did not provide, as is provided in the constitution of 1877, that "laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation throughout the state, and no special law shall be enacted in any case for which provision has been made by an existing general law." Code, § 5027. When the constitution of 1877 was adopted, there was in force a general law of this state, providing that insolvent criminal costs due solicitors general of this state should be paid out of the fund arising from fines and forfeitures. Under this general law, which still exists, insolvent costs were not a part of the expenses of court; but this special or local law applicable to the Au gusta circuit, which pointed out a different mode for the payment of costs of the solicitor general from that prescribed in the general law, did, in our judgment, make insolvent criminal costs, in that circuit, a part of the expenses of court, when the payment thereof was recommended in the manner prescribed in the act. Const. 1877, art. 12, § 1, par. 4, (Code, § 5233,) keeps of force local and private acts passed for the benefit of counties, cities, towns, corporations, and private persons, not inconsistent with the constitution. We think the act in...