12 Ga. 137 | Ga. | 1852
By the Court.
delivering the opinion.
The -Clerks of these Courts respectively, were, at the close of each term of the Court, out of this fund, to pay each Petit Juror the sum of one dollar and a half per diem, for his services; and if there should not be a sufficient amount of said funds in the hands of the Clerk, then he was to give to each of the Jurors a certificate for such balance, which the County Treasurer was to pay, out of the County funds in his hands, not otherwise appropriated.
If, on the other hand, there was a surplus left, after paying off the Jurors for the term, it was to remain in the hands of the Clerks, for the future purposes aforesaid; and all fines imposed on Jurors for non-attendance or other causes, were to be paid into the hands of the Clerk, and constitute a part of the fund aforesaid. Pamphlet Acts of 1841, p. 147.
The alternative mandamus was granted.
In response, the Justices admit that the relators hold the scrip for which they are seeking satisfaction ; and that they appeared before them and applied to have some provision made for the payment of these claims, which they refused, on the grounds:
1. Because these certificates are barred by the Statute of Limitations.
' 2dly. Because the relators were not the persons to whom the scrip originally issued, nor was it assigned to them.
3dly. Because the Act under which this scrip was issued, did not authorize the Justices of the Inferior Court to levy a tax, to pay this claim; and
4thly. Because there was no funds in the treasury, out of which these orders could have been paid, at the time the demand was made.
Upon this return and argument had thereon, Judge Powers made the mandamus absolute, and required the Justices to pay these orders out of any funds in the County treasury, not other
And this judgment is assigned as error in this Court.
In a case like this, we will not be very astute to convict the judgment which we are called on to reverse of technical errors. On the contrary, believing as we do, that this is an unwarrantable attempt at repudiation in a small way, we feel it to be our solemn duty to sustain the Circuit Court in its prompt determination to rebuke and repress it. Nor do we see that any principle of law has been violated.
How does the Statute of Limitations apply to a case like this ? when did it begin to run ? Certainly not on the date of the certificates ; for by the terms of the law under which they issued, the debt against the County was to be liquidated in this way, when, for want of funds, prompt payment could not be made; and they were to be held until funds -were in hand for their discharge. Application was repeatedly made for this purpose, and the holders were put off, on the ground that there was no money in the treasury, and no authority to levy a tax for their redemption.. And payment never was denied until last February ; nor did the Statute begin to run until that time.
As to the holder having no assignment, none was needed. They were properly made payable to the Juror or bearer, to enable him to cash them to pay for his meals, while in attendance on the Court, and were negotiable by delivery.
The order passed by the Court, is most just in itself, and is in exact accordance with the provisions of the law under which the liability was created.
Judgment affirmed.