Callaway County v. Henderson

• Decision Date: 27 November 1893
• Citation: 24 S.W. 437,119 Mo. 32
• Parties: CALLAWAY COUNTY v. HENDERSON, County Clerk.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

24 S.W. 437

119 Mo. 32

CALLAWAY COUNTY v. HENDERSON, County Clerk.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

November 27, 1893.

COUNTY CLERKS — COMPENSATION — APPEAL — REVIEW.

1. Rev. St. 1889, § 5010, which limits the fees of county clerks in certain counties to $1,800 per year, includes the amount allowed him by the county court for compensation for services as their clerk under section 3207, and he cannot retain such allowance in addition to the $1,800.

2. Act April 12, 1889, which limits the fees to be retained by the county clerk for his services to $1,500, is not repealed by Rev. St. 1889, § 5010, which went into effect November 1, 1889, fixing the limit at $1,800, in so far as it affects the compensation of the clerk during his then existing term, in view of Const. art. 14, § 8, prohibiting an increase in the compensation of officers during their terms.

3. The mere fact that a party saves exceptions to adverse rulings of the trial court is not sufficient to entitle him to a review on appeal by the other party, where he himself has not moved for a new trial or taken an appeal.

Appeal from circuit court, Callaway county; John A. Hockaday, Judge.

James D. Henderson, clerk of Callaway county, was cited by the prosecuting attorney to appear before the county court, and account for fees received by him during his term of office. From the judgment of the county court, the prosecuting attorney appealed to the circuit court. Judgment was there rendered against Henderson, and he appeals. Reversed.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by BLACK, C. J.:

The defendant, James D. Henderson, was the duly elected and qualified clerk of the county court of Callaway county for two official terms of four years each, extending from the first Monday in January, 1883, to the first Monday in January, 1891. On the 6th of April, 1891, the prosecuting attorney filed a motion in the county court to require Henderson to account for fees received during both terms. At the time of filing the motion, Henderson had filed no statement of fees received for the last quarter of 1890. He appeared in the county court, and, in answer to the motion, filed an abstract of his accounts, showing the fees received by him, and the amounts paid out to his deputy and assistant, during the year of 1890. The county court, on the hearing of the motion, took up the statements filed by the clerk during the four years of the last term, and found the clerk indebted to the county for each year, except the last one; but the court refused to go over the statements filed during the first term. From the judgment entered on this finding, the prosecuting attorney appealed to the circuit court.

On the trial of the cause in the circuit court, the prosecuting attorney offered in evidence the different statements made by the clerk during the seven years prior to 1890. The court, on an inspection of the statements or reports, and the orders of the county court approving them, held that the orders of approval were judgments, and therefore conclusive as between the county and the clerk, and for this reason excluded the statements, to which ruling the prosecuting attorney excepted. The prosecuting attorney then read in evidence the quarterly statements for 1890, including the abstract of accounts before mentioned. On this and some other evidence, the court found that Henderson had received, during the year 1890, fees to the amount of $3,125.52; that he had paid for deputy clerk services $700, and to an assistant the further sum of $550; that he was entitled to $1,500 for his own services, and ordered him to pay the excess, of $375.52, into the county treasury. From this judgment, Henderson appealed to this court.

Snell, Taylor, Bailey & Tincher and I. W. Boulware, for appellant. N. D. Thurmond, Pros. Atty., for respondent.

BLACK, C. J., (after stating the facts.)

1. The prosecuting attorney insists here that the orders made by the county court approving the various quarterly statements were not judgments, and that the circuit court should have reviewed the accounts for the eight years, and determined what, if any amount, the clerk collected in each year in excess of that allowed by law.

It is to be observed, in the first place, that these statements rendered prior to that year 1890 are not found in the record before us. All we have is the statement that they were offered in evidence. But a full and complete answer to all of these claims...