Adam v. Wright

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

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 Before that time, the general assembly, by Acts Ga. 1880-81, p. 650, repealed the repealing act of 1879. Held, that the repealing act of 1879, having been itself repealed before it went into operation, did not take effect on the act of 1873, and that the latter act continued of force by virtue of its original enactment, and not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 ti

[11 S.E. 894]

tie 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 art. 3, § 7, par. 17, (Code, § 5076,) which declares that no law shall be repealed by mere reference to its title, but that the repealing act shall distinctly describe the law to be repealed.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...