Holland v. State

• Citation: 1 So. 521,23 Fla. 123
• Parties: HOLLAND, Sheriff, etc. v. STATE ex rel. DUVAL Co.
• Decision Date: 28 February 1887
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

1 So. 521

23 Fla. 123

HOLLAND, Sheriff, etc. v. STATE ex rel. DUVAL Co.

Florida Supreme Court

February 28, 1887

Appeal from Duval county, Fourth judicial circuit.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

A statute authorizing the county commissioners to employ at hard labor upon public works all persons imprisoned in the jails of the several counties, under sentence upon conviction of crime, or imprisoned for failure to pay fine and costs, is not rendered unconstitutional, or made the exercise of a judicial function, by the fact that it does not contemplate that its terms shall be pronounced as a part of or incorporated in the record of the sentence of the court, or by the fact that they are not so pronounced or incorporated.

Such a statute is, as against such objections, purely legislative in its character, and violates no provision of the constitution.

Sections 1 and 2, p. 320, McClel. Dig., held to repeal section 3, same page.

Where the sentence is one of imprisonment and costs, the credit of 30 cents per day under said act (sections 1 and 2) is applicable to costs alone, and no credit that may be given the convict on his costs will operate to limit the power of the county commissioners to employ him during the period of his sentence.

The expense of subsisting a convict after he has been sentenced to such imprisonment is not a part of the 'costs.' Such costs are those legally adjudged against him by the sentence.

Where a statute imposes a power or duty upon a board of officers, and to execute such power or perform such duty it becomes necessary to obtain a writ of mandamus, they may apply for the same.

The county commissioners, and not the attorney general, held to be the proper applicants for a mandamus against a sheriff obstructing the enforcement of the above statute, and that such an application, though made in the name of the county and not objected to, is sufficient, even assuming it should have been made in their names and official titles as county commissioners.

An allegation, in an alternative writ of mandamus, of a demand for certain prisoners 'confined in the jail' of the county 'under sentence to imprisonment,' and giving their names, and the dates on and periods for which they were sentenced, is a sufficient allegation that they are, at the time of the application for the writ, so confined.

A resolution of a board of county commissioners authorizing two of its members to take such action as in their judgment is necessary to utilize the labor of county prisoners on public works, is not an illegal delegation by the board of its powers under the above statute. It shows a determination by the board that the statute shall be enforced, leaving the details of its enforcement to two members, whose action is not put beyond the supervision or control of the board as such.

COUNSEL

A. W. Cockrell & Son, for appellant.

Hartridge & Young, for appellee.

OPINION

RANEY J.

1. The alternative writ alleges that at a regular meeting held January 4, 1886, the board of county commissioners of Duval county adopted a resolution authorizing the chairman of the board and Commissioner L'Engle to take such action as in their judgment might be necessary to utilize the labor of county prisoners on public works; that, in pursuance of said resolution, and under the authority thereof, H. Robirsson the chairman, and Commissioner L'Engle, demanded of the appellant, sheriff of the county, on the second day of August, 1886, that he deliver to Titus Tilman, foreman of the guards of the county convict gang, the following named prisoners confined in the jail of the county, under sentence to imprisonment therein, or imprisoned therein for failure to pay a fine imposed upon conviction for crime, to-wit: Reuben Hamilton sentenced June 12th for six months; William Robinson, sentenced May 28th for three months; H. J. Haggarty, sentenced June 12th for four months; and James Todd, sentenced May 18th for three months; and that the said sheriff has refused to comply with the demand, and the writ commands him to deliver the prisoners to Tilman, foreman of the guards of the county convict gang, or show cause. The sheriff demurred to the writ on several distinct grounds, and, after argument, the demurrer was overruled, and there was final judgment awarding the peremptory writ. The sheriff appealed, and an order staying the issue of the writ pending such appeal was made.

Chapter 2090, (approved March 7, 1877,) p. 320, McClel. Dig., provides that the board of county commissioners of the several counties of this state may employ all persons imprisoned in the jails of the several counties in this state, under sentence of conviction for crime, or for failure to pay a fine and costs imposed upon conviction for crime, at labor upon the streets of incorporated cities or towns, upon the roads, bridges, and public works in the several counties where they are so imprisoned; and to make all needful rules and regulations for their safe-keeping, government, and discipline while so employed. The convicts so employed are not to be required to labor more than 10 hours per day, and entitled to a credit at the rate of 30 cents per day, with subsistence for such labor, which shall be credited on the amount of fine and costs charged against them. Section 31 of the act to regulate criminal proceedings before justices of the peace, (chapter 2093,) approved at the same session, but five days before the above statute, provided that every male person convicted of any offense in a justice's court, and sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail, or imprisoned for the non-payment of a fine or costs under the provisions of the act of which it is a part, may be employed at such manual labor as may be directed by the county commissioners of the county in or upon any buildings, grounds, streets, roads, bridges, or public works of any kind within their county, and under such regulations as they may prescribe, but not to exceed 10 hours' labor in each 24 hours; and any person imprisoned for the nonpayment of any fine or costs shall be credited, on account thereof, with the sum of 50 cents for each day's labor so performed in addition to the charge for subsistence.

We think the statute first set out, (chapter 2090,) which, as stated, was enacted subsequently to the other, (chapter 2093,) was intended as a revision and operates as a repeal of the other. This point was not passed on in Ex parte Hunter, 16 Fla. 575. It (chapter 2090) covers the cases, not only of the male convicts from justice of the peace courts, but of convicts of both sexes from any court, and not only supplies the place of section 31 of chapter 2093, but makes other provisions to effect the general purpose of the employment of convicts confined in the county jail under sentence of imprisonment, or on default in payment of fines and costs.

Under section 14 of chapter 2093, a prisoner committed to prison because of his failure to pay 'fine and costs' adjudged against him by a justice of the peace court cannot be kept in prison longer than three months. It is perfectly clear that it never was the intention of the law-makers that the provisions of section 31 of chapter 2093, or those of chapter 2090, which replaced the former, should be announced in court as a...