Stearns v. Graham
| Decision Date | 04 March 1912 |
| Citation | 82 A. 835,85 Vt. 486 |
| Parties | STEARNS v. GRAHAM. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Petition for writ of mandamus by Joseph T. Stearns against Horace F. Graham. Heard on petition and answer. Mandamus issued.
Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and MUNSON, WATSON, HASELTON, and POWERS, JJ.
Cowles, Moulton & Stearns, for relator.
John G. Sargent, Atty. Gen., and H. B. Shaw, State's Atty., for the State.
Before the passage of No. 243, Laws of 1910, any justice of the peace, acting within his jurisdiction, who heard a criminal cause, was entitled to the fees allowed by the general provisions of the statutes to justices for such official services. By section 1 of that act, no fees shall be allowed or paid to a justice of the peace in a criminal cause heard by him in a town or city in which there is a municipal or city court, unless the judge of such court certifies that he was disqualified or unable to attend upon or hear said cause. Thereby the right of a justice to the allowance of fees in a cause falling within the provisions of this act is made to depend solely upon such a certificate being made by the municipal or city judge; and the certificate may properly be grounded upon inability due to the physical or mental condition of the judge, or to the fact of his being so far away that his return to attend upon or hear the cause is impossible, or unreasonable to expect.
This special act being later than the general statute respecting the allowance of fees to justices of the peace in criminal causes, it must be considered as modifying the latter, and to prevail over it in the particular instances specified; and the right of a justice to fees in a case within its provisions is to be determined by the requirements of that act, rather than by the general provisions of the statutes, if such there are, authorizing or requiring the Auditor of Accounts to investigate upon evidence or otherwise the legal sufficiency of the disqualification or inability of the municipal or city judge, upon which the certificate was based. The general rule of construction is here applicable that an act relating to a particular subject will prevail over a contrary earlier general statute. St. Johnsbury v. Thompson, 59 Vt. 300, 9 Atl. 571, 59 Am. Rep. 731; Deneen v. Unverzagt, 225 Ill. 378, 80 N. E. 321, 8 Ann. Oas. 396.
The record shows that the relator, as justice of the peace, heard a criminal cause in the city of Burlington, on the 24th day of February, 1911,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Charles Belfore v. Vermont State Highway Department
... ... repugnancy between them the special will prevail regardless ... of their order or dates. In re James, 99 Vt. 265, ... 272, 132 A. 40; Stearns v. Graham, 85 Vt ... 486, 487, 82 A. 835. Since both are a part of chapter 264, P ... L., which deals with the subject of workmen's ... ...
-
Belfore v. Vermont State Highway Dep't
...between them, the special will prevail regardless of their order or dates (In re James, 99 Vt. 265, 272, 132 A. 40; Stearns v. Graham, 85 Vt. 486, 487, 82 A. 835). Since both are a part of chapter 264, P.L, which deals with the subject of workmen's compensation and the procedure for obtaini......
-
State v. Stevens
...terms. In such a case there is no necessity for construction. Blanchard v. Blanchard's Estate, 109 Vt. 454, 459, 199 A. 233; Stearns v. Graham, 85 Vt. 486, 82 A. 835; State v. Franklin County Savings Bank, 74 Vt. 246, 263, 52 A. 1069; In re Will of Prudenzano, 116 Vt. 55, 60, 68 A.2d 704. U......
-
Flora H. Blanchard v. John W. Blanchard's Estate, F. Chaffee's Sons, Creditor
... ... enforce it according to its obvious terms. In such a case ... there is no necessity for construction." ... Stearns v. Graham, 85 Vt. 486, 82 A. 835, ... 836, quoting Thornley v. United States, 113 ... U.S. 310, 28 L.Ed. 999, 5 S.Ct. 491; State v ... Franklin ... ...