State v. Brown

• Decision Date: 17 October 1898
• Citation: 47 S.W. 504,146 Mo. 401
• Parties: STATE ex rel. TROLL, Sheriff, v. BROWN, Auditor, et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

47 S.W. 504

146 Mo. 401

STATE ex rel. TROLL, Sheriff, v. BROWN, Auditor, et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

October 17, 1898.

SHERIFFS — FEES — ATTENDANCE ON CRIMINAL COURTS — CERTIFICATE OF JUDGE.

1. Though a statute requires a sheriff to attend certain criminal courts, he cannot recover fees therefor, in the absence of statutory provision.

2. Fees for attending criminal courts are not allowed by Rev. St. 1889, § 4989, as amended by Acts 1891, p. 145, § 10, as the section, though providing that sheriffs shall be allowed for their services fees in all cases as thereafter specified, in one clause of which there is a provision for two dollars per day "for attending each court," clearly has reference to civil courts, proceedings therein, and processes issued therefrom and returnable thereto.

3. Certificates of judges of criminal courts that certain fees are due the sheriff for attendance thereon, being without authority, have no binding force.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; James B. Withrow, Judge.

Mandamus proceedings on the relation of Henry Troll, sheriff of the city of St. Louis, against Joseph Brown, auditor of said city, and said city. Judgment for relator. Defendant Brown appeals. Reversed.

Chas. Claflin Allen, for appellant. F. A. Wind, for respondent.

BURGESS, J.

This is a proceeding by mandamus, begun by the sheriff of the city of St. Louis in the circuit court of that city against the city auditor, to compel him to issue to said sheriff warrants on the city treasurer for the amount of certain accounts claimed by said sheriff to be due him for attendance upon the criminal courts and court of criminal correction in said city. The petition charges that it was made the duty of the sheriff to attend upon said courts, both by the General Statutes (section 3267, Rev. St. 1889), which required him to attend all courts, and the law applicable to city of St. Louis (sections 3, 4, art. 20, p. 2158, Append. Rev. St. 1889), which specifically required him to attend the criminal courts and courts of criminal correction; and, further, that by law (section 4989, Rev. St. 1889) he is entitled to compensation for attendance of himself and two deputies. It is further charged that the account of sheriff had been audited and allowed by the judges of the respective courts, and it is claimed that the act of the court is binding on the city auditor. The amount of demand is not controverted, but the defense is that section 4989 refers to costs in civil cases only; that there is no provision for compensation to sheriff for attendance upon court in criminal cases, and therefore none can be allowed. The case was tried upon the following agreed statement of facts: "In the above-entitled cause it is hereby stipulated and agreed that the petition for an alternative writ, the alternative writ and return thereto, heretofore filed by Joseph Brown, auditor, etc., may all be amended by interlineation by adding the name of the city of St. Louis as a party defendant wherever it may be necessary, so that this proceeding shall stand as if the petition was originally filed against the defendant Brown, as auditor of the city of St. Louis, and as if the alternative writ had been issued and directed to both, and as if the return had been filed on behalf of both. It is further stipulated and agreed that upon the hearing hereof it shall stand admitted that the petitioner is the duly elected, qualified, and acting sheriff in and for the city of St. Louis, as alleged in the petition, and that the term of division No. 1 of the St. Louis criminal court for the July term, 1895, thereof, lasted for eighty-four days, but that the said division of said court was in session for only ____ days during said term, and that two deputies of petitioner attended said court while it was in actual session on said ____ days; that petitioner prepared his account against the city of St. Louis therefor, and submitted the same to the judge of the said court, and that the judge of said court examined said account, and allowed and certified to the same; and that it was thereupon submitted by petitioner to defendant Brown, as auditor, and that petitioner requested said defendant to allow the same, and to draw his warrant therefor upon the city treasurer, and that said defendant Brown refused to allow or to draw any warrant for the said services. And also that the term of division No. 2 of the St. Louis criminal court for the July term, 1895, thereof, lasted for 84 days, but that the said division of said court was in session for only ____ days during said term, and that two deputies of petitioner attended said court while it was in actual session on said ____ days, and that petitioner prepared his account against the city of St. Louis therefor, and that said account was submitted to the judge of said court, who examined, allowed, and certified the same, and that petitioner thereupon...