Sixteen persons, having been jointly indicted for a misdemeanor and having pleаded guilty, were condemned to pay a fine of $10 each and the costs of the prosecution. As a part of the costs, the clerk taxed up agаinst each defendant a fee of $10 in favor of the prosecuting attornеy. The defendants moved for a re-taxation of costs, alleging that the attorney prosecuting for the state was only entitled to one fee ' in the entirе case; but the circuit court denied their motion.
Section 3233 of Mansf Dig., allows a fee for each conviction. And the question is, whether there have beеn sixteen convictions, or only one.
If there is a doubt as to the meaning of thе statute, that doubt must be resolved against the officer. Foe statutes regulating сosts are construed strictly. . Fees.for constructive services are in no сases allowed. Those who serve the public must rest content with the compensation provided by the plain letter of the law. Shed v. Railroad Co.,
But we apprehend there is no ambiguity in the statutе. A conviction is defined to be “that legal proceeding of record which ascertains the guilt of the party, and upon which the sentence or judgment is fоunded.” Bouvier’s Law Dict., title “Conviction.” Bishop says it is “finding a person guilty by verdict of a jury.” 1 Cr. Law, sec. 223. Here has been but one indictment, one plea, one legal рroceeding of record, one judgment, and consequently but one conviction, although several persons were included in the accusation and аre affected by the proceeding and judgment. There has been but one case between the state and the defendants. The prosecuting attornеy has drawn but one indictment and has represented the state at but one trial. He has rendered substantially the same service which he would have rendered if the indictment had been against one defendant. And any reasoning which allows him sixteеn fees for performing one service, or set of services, would entitle the clerk to sixteen fees for entering the judgment. .
Now, such a construction might beсome oppressive. Defendants who are jointly indicted and who do not sever, are liable for all the costs of the prosecution; although payment by one inures to the benefit of all. Mansf. Dig., sec. 2339. One of these defendants might have been able and willing to pay his-fine, and the prosecuting attorney’s feе of $10, and the other costs. Could he be held and hired out as a convict if he refused to pay the costs that were taxed on account of his co-defendants?
Costs in a criminal case are not intendéd as a part of the punishment. That^object is accomplished by the infliction of fines, or imprisonment, or bоth. Costs are awarded in order that the state may prosecute the guilty at their own expense. State v. Jackson, 46 Ark., 137.
This question came before the 'Honоrable Seymour D. Thompson, one of the judges of the St. Louis Court of Appeals, in the matter of Jerry Murphy and Jerry Spillance, on an application for the writ of habeas corpus. The petitioners had been jointly proceeded against for a misdemeanor, tried, convicted, and adjudged to pay a fine of $25 and costs. They paid the fine and what they were advised were all the costs, including a single fee of $5 for the prosecuting attorney. The justicе of the peace had taxed a fee of $5 in respect of eаch defendant; and for the non-payment of the remaining $5 he issued his warrant of commitment, under which the petitioners were held. The statute of Missouri is identical with ours; and the petitioners were discharged. We have been furnished with a certified copy of the luminous and exhaustive opinion filed by the learned judge, of which we have made a liberal use in preparing this opinion.
The judgment is reversed and a re-taxation of costs is ordered in conformity to this opinion.