Lane v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1887 |
| Citation | 49 N.J.L. 673,10 A. 360 |
| Parties | LANE v. STATE. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
In error to the supreme court.
Mr. Seymour, for plaintiff in error. Mr. Winfleld, for the State.
The plaintiff in error was convicted in the Hudson quarter sessions on an indictment charging him with taking, as justice of the peace, a fee to execute and to do his duty and office such as is not allowed by the laws of the state, and contrary to the twenty-third section of the crimes act. The judgment was removed to the supreme court, and was there affirmed, and thereupon this writ of error was brought.
The bill of exceptions shows that the plaintiff in error, on issuing a warrant for the arrest of a person charged before him with a misdemeanor, took from the complainant for his services the fees prescribed by law. The trial judge instructed the jury that such fees were due to a justice of the peace only after conviction of the party charged; but that he could not be convicted of extortion unless he demanded the fees received by him from the party making the complaint, because of the provisions of the second and third sections of an act approved April 6, 1871, (Revision, 565, 566;) the second section providing that "no fees be demanded from parties applying to justices of the peace for their services, but shall be paid out of the funds of the county in which said services were rendered;" and the third section, that, upon payment being made to the justice by the county collector, "said justice shall refund to the complainant so much of said costs as shall have been paid by the complainant to said justice;" that he might take the fees if they were offered to him. The supreme court agreed in this interpretation of the act of 1871, and affirmed the judgment. We think no criticism can be made upon the construction given to the act in the trial court and in the supreme court; but the question is here raised as to the constitutionality of that act of 1871, and we think the grounds upon which this attack is made are wholly tenable. Its title is "A further supplement to an act entitled 'An act constituting courts for the trial of small causes.'" Most of its provisions relate to the fees of justices of the peace as public magistrates, and the fees of constables in criminal cases. Indeed, the entire act has relation to criminal procedure.
The powers of justices of the peace as public magistrates had their existence, essentially as now, long before the act constituting courts for the trial of small causes was enacted. It has been the habit from early times to confer upon such officers jurisdiction in certain civil causes; and in the act of March 15, 1798, (Paterson, Laws, 318,) constituting courts for the trial of small causes, a well-defined civil jurisdiction, with prescribed modes of procedure, was established, and justices of the peace ex officio are constituted judges; and a review of all their judgments was to be had in the civil courts. None of the powers exercised by justices of the peace in criminal matters are derived from or in any way regulated by the provisions of that act, and the title chosen by the legislature for the act in question would not serve in any way to indicate a purpose by the law to legislate in respect to these officers as conservators of the peace. Their duties are to arrest, examine, commit, or to bail, and that in all criminal cases. No case of a criminal character is before them to hear or to try. This title is misleading, and not in compliance with paragraph 4, § 7, art. 4, of our constitution, which requires the object of every law to be expressed in its title. This enactment, then, can have no effect in determining the correctness of this judgment. The conviction, if supported, must then rest on the correctness of the instruction to the jury that it is a criminal extortion in a justice of the peace to ask or demand from a complainant, in a criminal case, at the time the complaint is made, payment of the fees fixed by law for his services.
It has been the uniform practice in this state to pay these officers by established fees for specific services performed. As early as 1747-48, an act was passed in the colonial legislature entitled "An act for the better enabling the judges and justices of this colony to ascertain and tax bills of costs, and for making provision bylaw for the payment of the services of the several officers of the colony, and for preventing of said officers from taking exorbitant fees," (Nevel, Laws, 338.) This "enacted" that the justice's fees, in or out of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cohn v. Kingsley
...19 Nev. 384, 12 P. 832; State v. Hoadley, 20 Nev. 317, 22 P. 99; Board of Supervisors v. McGruder, 84 Va. 828, 6 S.E. 232; Lane v. State, 49 N. J. L. 673, 10 A. 360; Ryerson v. Utley, 16 Mich. 269; Carter Co. Sinton, 120 U.S. 517, 7 S.Ct. 650; Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. 147, 2 S.Ct. 39......
-
State v. Begyn
...Page 324 (Sup.Ct.1816); State v. Maires, 33 N.J.L. 142 (Sup.Ct.1868); Cutter ads. State, 36 N.J.L. 125 (Sup.Ct.1873); Lane v. State, 49 N.J.L. 673, 10 A. 360 (E. & A.1887); Loftus v. State, 52 N.J.L. 223, 20 A. 320 (E. & A. 1889) (opinion reported only in 19 A. 183). See also State v. Seidm......
-
State v. Goodman
...v. State, 19 A. 183, 184 (N.J.E. & A.1890). In Lane v. State, 47 N.J.L. 362, 363 (Sup.Ct.1885), reversed on other grounds 49 N.J.L. 673, 10 A. 360 (E. & A.1887), Chief Justice Beasley stated that if the defendant there did not come within the specific enumerations in the extortion act he wa......
-
O'Brien v. St. Croix Boom Corporation
...16 Neb. 337; People v. Fleming, 7 Colo. 230; Rogers v. Manufacturers, 109 Pa. St. 109; Sewickley v. Sholes, 118 Pa. St. 165; Lane v. State, 49 N.J.L. 673; Miller Edwards, 8 Colo. 528; State v. Silver, 9 Nev. 227; Eaton v. Walker, 76 Mich. 579; Anderson v. Whatcom, 15 Wash. 47. Clapp & Macar......