39 S.E. 263 | S.C. | 1901
July 12, 1901. The opinion of the Court was delivered by The statements in the "Case for Appeal" is as follows: "On the 3d day of April, 1899, a bill of indictment was found by the grand jury for Richland Count, S.C. charging W.R. Crawford with the murder of one Mrs. Stewart, alleged to have been committed in the said county of Richland. Subsequently, on motion of the defendant, Crawford, an order was obtained changing the venue from Richland County to Kershaw County, and the case so removed was tried thereafter at the June term of the Court of General Sessions for said Kershaw County, On the 9th day of June, 1899, the following itemized statement, duly verified, of the fees costs and expenses of the trial — all of which accrued subsequently to the order changing the venue as aforesaid — was presented to the county board of commissioners of Richland County for approval: 12 Jurors, *77 3 days, $54.00; 5 constables, 3 days, $22.50; 2 constables, 2 nights, $6.00; 1 porter, 3 days, $4.50; 1 porter, 2 nights, $3.00; 1 ticket boy, 1 day, $1.50 — $91.50; 72 meals for jury and constables, at 25c. each, $18.00; total, $109.70" Which account was duly certified by Joel Hough, Esq., as clerk of Court for Kershaw County. And the following language is used in the "Case for Appeal." The County board of commissioners for Richland County disallowed the whole of said claim on the ground that the same did not constitute a legal claim against said Richland County, but made no objection to the proof of said claim." Thereupon Kershaw County appealed from said Claim." Thereupon Kershaw board of commissioners for Richland County to the Circuit Court for Richland County, which appeal came on to be heard before his Honor, Judge Townsend, who reversed the order of disallowance by the county board of commissioners for Richland County; whereupon the said board appealed to this Court from Judge Townsend's judgment on the following grounds:
"1. Because his Honor erred in finding as matter of fact that the correctness of the items making up the claim of Kershaw County herein was conceded upon the hearing of this cause.
"2. Because his Honor erred in finding as matter of law that the claim of Kershaw County herein constitutes a legal and valid claim against Richland County, and that the County board of commissioners for Richland County erred in declining to allow and pay the same; whereas, it appearing that all of the items of said claim accrued after the order changing the venue from Richland County to Kershaw County and during the trial of the cause so transferred, in said Kershaw County, his Honor should have held that the same do not constitute a legal and valid claim against said Richland County, and so holding should have dismissed the appeal.
"3. Because his Honor erred in ordering and decreeing that the county board of commissioners for Richland County *78 do audit the whole of said claim and order the same to be paid as a valid and legal claim against Richland County; whereas, it appearing the Kershaw County had not paid the items representing fees of witnesses, aggregating $688.40, and clerk's costs, aggregating $8.65, and had made no claim therefor, and that no appeal had been taken from the action of the county board of commissioners for Richland County in declining to allow and pays said items, the same were not involved at the hearing, and his Honor was without jurisdiction to render judgment with reference thereto."
It was agreed by counsel that the decree of the Circuit Judge should be altered by striking out the figures $976.55 therefrom and by inserting the figures $109.70 in lieu thereof.
We will now consider the first ground of appeal. It is true, as stated by the appellant, that the correctness of the items making up the claim of $109.70 was not presented as an issue to be passed upon by the Circuit Judge — hence this ground of appeal is sustained.
The question raised by the second ground of appeal is for the first time presented to this Court for determination. In the case of Colleton County against Hampton County,
The third ground of appeal was passed upon in our preliminary *80 remarks. The Circuit Judge was in error here also, but it has been corrected by consent.
Lastly, we observe that we have not paid any attention to the items comprising the costs, fees and expenses herein involved, because we have already determined that no costs, fees or expenses could be recovered by the plaintiff in this cause from Richland County.
It is the judgment of this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed, and that the action be recommitted to the Circuit Court with instructions to formulate a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's appeal from the judgment of the county board of commissioners for Richland County.