State v. Croom
Decision Date | 22 July 1904 |
Citation | 48 Fla. 176,37 So. 303 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. GUYTON, Circuit Court Clerk v. CROOM, State Comptroller. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
In Banc. Petition by the state, on the relation of Moses Guyton clerk of the circuit court of Jackson county, for writ of mandamus to A. C. Croom, State Comptroller.
Syllabus by the Court
1. Under the provisions of chapter 4121, p. 45, Laws 1893, a clerk of a circuit court is a proper party, as relator in a mandamus proceeding, to require the Comptroller to honor a requisition by such clerk for the amount of money necessary for the payment of jurors and witnesses to be paid by the state at any regular or special term of the circuit court.
2. Section 9, art. 16, of the Constitution, as amended in 1894 does not impose upon the several counties of the state the duty of paying the per diem and mileage of witnesses before a grand jury.
3. The phrase 'witnesses duly summoned by the state,' which is contained in section 2, c. 4120, p. 45, Laws 1893 construed in connection with section 1, c. 4119, p. 44, Laws 1893, and in connection with section 2, c. 5114, p. 35, Laws 1903 ( ), embraces witnesses before grand juries, and imposes upon the state the duty of paying the per diem and mileage of such witnesses.
4. There is no conflict between section 24, art. 4, of the Constitution of 1885, and chapter 4121, p. 45, Laws 1893; and when a requisition is made by a clerk on the Comptroller for the money to pay jurors and witnesses to be paid by the state, as provided in said chapter 4121, and the amount deemed by him necessary is indorsed on said requisition, and this indorsement is countersigned by the Governor, as required by said section 24, art. 4, of the Constitution such requisition, so indorsed and countersigned, becomes an order on the Treasurer, within the meaning of the word 'order' as used in said section of the Constitution, and as authority for the Treasurer to transmit the money to a clerk, as required by said chapter 4121.
Wm. B. Farley, for plaintiff.
W. H Ellis, Atty. Gen., for respondent. On the petition of the relator, Moses Guyton, clerk of the circuit court of Jackson county, Fla., presented to this court, an alternative writ was issued in the following form:
'In the Supreme Court of the State of Florida. 'In the Name of the State of Florida.
'To A. C. Croom, as Comptroller of the State of Florida--Greeting:
'Whereas, the sworn petition of Moses Guyton, clerk of the circuit court of Jackson county, Florida, filed before this honorable court on the 7th day of July, A. D. 1904, shows as follows: That petitioner is clerk of the circuit court in and for the county of Jackson, state of Florida, and that said circuit court is in session, Spring term, 1904. That within four weeks of the commencement of said Spring term of said court in and for Jackson county, state of Florida, petitioner, as clerk of the circuit court of said county, did make an estimate of the amount necessary for the payment of jurors and witnesses before the grand jury to be paid by the state at said term of court, and in person did call upon the Honorable A. C. Croom, as Comptroller of the state of Florida, for the purpose of making a requisition and obtaining such money to the amount of such estimate; but petitioner was informed by the said A. C. Croom, as Comptroller, that petitioner's requisition, if containing a requisition for the payment of the fees of witnesses before the grand jury, would not be honored, and that petitioner would be allowed to make requisition for money to pay jurors only--the said comptroller basing such refusal upon an opinion of the late Attorney General to the effect that fees of witnesses before the grand jury should not be paid by the state, but by the county. That petitioner, knowing that the like term of court in the year A. D. 1903 required $1,513.75 for the payment of jurors, and $772.35 for the payment of the fees of witnesses before the grand jury, filled out an estimate and requisition blank, furnished him by said Comptroller, for the sum of $1,500 for the payment of jurors only at said present term of court, and in due process received such sum of $1,500. That the board of county commissioners for the county of Jackson, state of Florida, refuse to pay the fees of witnesses before the grand jury, or to allow the same to be paid by the county, claiming that under the statutes such fees should be paid by the state of Florida. That the compensation of jurors and witnesses before the grand jury to be paid by the state at the spring term of said circuit court in and for Jackson county, state of Florida, exceeds the amount estimated by the petitioner as clerk aforesaid, in the estimate and requisition forwarded to the Comptroller as aforesaid, and said amount is insufficient to pay in full said jurors and witnesses before the grand jury, and petitioner as such clerk did, on the 24th day of June, A. D. 1904, during said present term of the said circuit court, make his further requisition upon the said Comptroller for the amount necessary to pay such deficiency, to wit, the sum of $500, which further requisition is in the words and figures following, to wit:
'That said further estimate and requisition for $500 was forwarded to said Comptroller on said 24th day of June, A. D. 1904; but the said Comptroller, regardless of the statutes in such cases made and provided, failed and refused to transmit to the clerk, said petitioner, the amount required, and still fails and refuses to honor said further requisition, or any part thereof, except upon the condition that said requisition be made for payment of jurors only, as appears from the letter of the said Comptroller in the words and figures following:
'And whereas, the said Moses Guyton, clerk of the circuit court of Jackson county, state of Florida, prays that a writ of mandamus be issued by the court to you, A. C. Croom, as Comptroller of the state of Florida, commanding you forthwith to honor such further requisition of said clerk of the circuit court of Jackson county, state of Florida, and forthwith to transmit to said clerk the said amount required, $500 being the amount required by said further requisition, and for peremptory writ of mandamus upon the further hearing of this cause:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hilburn
... ... the act in question is prohibited by some express provision ... of the Constitution or some necessarily implied limitation ... upon the legislative power, 1 think the act is valid ... Cheney v. Jones, 14 Fla. 587, text 607; State ex ... rel. Guyton v. Croom, 48 Fla. 176, 37 So. 303; ... Thomas v. Williamson, 51 Fla. 332, 40 So. 831; ... Bloxham v. Florida Cent. & P. R. Co., 35 Fla. 625, ... text 734, 17 So. 902; Holton v. State, 28 Fla. 303, ... 9 So. 716; State. ex rel. Moodie v. Bryan, 50 Fla ... 293, text 355-393, 39 So. 929; ... ...
-
State Ex Rel. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalizers
... ... was held that the act would not be declared unconstitutional ... on their application to enjoin the holding of an election on ... the ground that the statute was unconstitutional.' ... [84 ... Fla. 601] The case of Board of Public Instruction for ... Santa Rosa County v. Croom, 57 Fla. 347, 48 So. 641, is ... not in conflict with the doctrine herein announced. In that ... case Mr. Knott's interest was directly affected. He was ... State Treasurer, and under a heavy bond. If he paid money out ... of the treasury under the provisions of an unconstitutional ... act, ... ...
-
Grand Jury Investigation, In re
...system a grand jury is an appendage or adjunct to the circuit court . . .' (Emphasis supplied) Next, in State ex rel. Guyton v. Croom, 48 Fla. 176, 37 So. 303, 306 (1904), our Court '. . . under our judicial system a grand jury is an appendage or adjunct to the circuit court . . .' Then, in......
-
Mcsween v. State Live Stock Sanitary Board of Florida
...Croom, 48 Fla. 176, 37 So. 302, and reaffirmed in State v. Knott, 48 Fla. 188, 37 So. 307. The opinion and conclusion of the court in State v. Croom, supra, conclusive of the question under consideration, and we have no reason to depart from that decision. Complainants further charge in the......