State v. Wilder

• Decision Date: 06 November 1907
• Citation: 206 Mo. 541,105 S.W. 272
• Parties: STATE ex rel. GRAY v. WILDER, State Auditor.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

105 S.W. 272

206 Mo. 541

STATE ex rel. GRAY v. WILDER, State Auditor.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

November 6, 1907.

1. STATUTES — EXPRESS REPEAL — CONSTRUCTION WITH REFERENCE TO OTHER STATUTES.

Rev. St. 1899, § 9701 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 4451], provides for the payment of the expenses of judges of circuit courts in holding court at places in his circuit other than his residence, to be paid from the state treasury, filing an itemized account with the State Auditor. Section 1 of an act of the General Assembly approved March 10, 1905 (Sess. Acts Mo. 1905, pp. 291, 292 [Ann. St. 1906, § 9701]), expressly repeals section 9701, Rev. St. 1899, and section 2 provides, in lieu thereof, judges of circuit courts shall be allowed $100 per month for his expenses in holding court at places in his circuit other than his residence, to be paid out of the state treasury monthly, "provided that this act shall not apply to circuits in cities of the state containing over 300,000 inhabitants, nor to circuits consisting of one county only." Relator, as judge of Jasper county, which constitutes an entire circuit, in which Joplin and Carthage, both having circuit courts, are located, the latter being his residence, filed his itemized account, as provided by the act of 1899, and sought to compel the Auditor of state to audit it as expenses incurred in holding court at Joplin, contending that the proviso "this act shall not apply" was not limited to the section in which it appeared, but included the repealing clause in section 1, so that the courts defined therein were not affected by the act. Held, that the effect of the proviso was limited to the section in which it occurred, and that section 9701, Rev. St. 1899, was repealed, so that there was no law under which to allow such claims.

2. SAME — CONSTRUCTION — MEANING OF WORDS.

It is a fundamental rule in the construction of statutes that the true intent of the Legislature as expressed in the language used shall be ascertained; but that words and phrases shall be taken in their ordinary sense, and that the courts are bound to construe a statute as written without regard to the results of construction, or the wisdom of the law as thus construed.

In banc. Motion for peremptory mandamus by the state, on the relation of Howard Gray, against William W. Wilder, State Auditor, to compel the audit of certain expenses incurred by relator in holding court in the city of Joplin, Jasper county, Mo. Motion denied.

This is an original proceeding in this court, by which it is sought by the relator to obtain from this court a peremptory writ of mandamus compelling the respondent to audit certain items of expenses incurred by the relator in holding court in the city of Joplin, Jasper county, Mo. We deem it unnecessary to set out in detail the petition of the relator. It will suffice to briefly state the facts upon which this proceeding is predicated. Judge Gray, the relator in this proceeding, is a resident of the city of Carthage, Jasper county, Mo., and ever since the first Monday in January, 1905, he has been and he is now the judge of Division No. 1 of the circuit court of Jasper county, and said county constitutes the Twenty-Fifth judicial circuit. Both the cities of Carthage and Joplin, in Jasper county, constitute the entire circuit. Under an act of the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, three terms of court are held each year in the city of Joplin. Judge Gray, the relator herein, held the October term, 1905, at Joplin, and on November 15, 1905, he filed with the respondent his itemized account of expenses necessarily incurred in holding said term, as is provided by section 9701, Rev. St. 1899 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 4451]. The respondent, who is the State Auditor of Missouri, refused to allow the account for expenses filed by the relator, on the ground that the provisions of section 9701, Rev. St. 1899, was expressly repealed by the act of the General Assembly approved March 10, 1905 (Acts 1905, pp. 291, 292), and that there is no law now in force applicable to the demand of the relator authorizing the auditing or payment of such claims. There is no dispute as to the facts. That the relator is the regularly elected and qualified judge of Division No. 1 of the Twenty-Fifth judicial circuit is conceded. The fact that he held the October term of court in 1905 in the city of Joplin, and incurred the expenses as evidenced by the itemized account filed with respondent, is not questioned. The respondent admits the allegations as contained in the petition, and simply by demurrer presents the question that, conceding the facts stated in the petition and alternative writ to be true, plaintiff is not entitled to the relief asked.

This is a sufficient statement of the nature and character of this controversy to enable us to determine the legal propositions involved.

Howard Gray, for relator. The Attorney General and N. T. Gentry, for respondent.

FOX, J. (after stating the facts as above).

As indicated in the foregoing statement, the only legal proposition disclosed by the record in this cause is: Does the act of March 10, 1905 (Sess. Acts Mo. 1905, pp. 291-292 [Ann. St. 1906, § 9701]), repeal section 9701, Rev. St. Mo. 1899 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 4451]? In other words, under the law as now in force, is there any authority for the respondent to audit the itemized account as presented by the relator, predicated upon the provisions of section 9701, Rev. St. 1899? Section 9701, Rev. St. 1899, provides: "Every judge of a circuit court or of a criminal court in this state shall be allowed and paid all sums of money actually expended by him in necessary expenses while...