The Manchester District Court (Capistran, J.) found the defendant guilty of a parking violation and fined him ten dollars. The defendant appealed to the Hillsborough County Superior Court but refused to pay the eight-dollar filing fee as required by Superior Court Rule 86 (RSA 491: App. R.86 (Supp. 1975)) and RSA 499:18 (Supp. 1975) on the ground that the fee violates article 14 of part I of the New Hampshire Constitution. The defendant is not and does not claim to be an indigent. Perkins, J., reserved and transferred questions of law to this court that raise the basic issue of whether superior court filing fees for non-indigents are unconstitutional.
Article 14 of part I of the New Hampshire Constitution states:
Legal Remedies to be Free, Complete, and Prompt. Every subject of this state is entitled to a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws, for all injuries he may receive in his person, property, or character; to obtain right and justice freely, without being obliged to purchase it; completely, and without any denial; promptly, and without delay; conformably to the laws.
The defendant contends that the eight-dollar filing fee requires him to purchase justice and that his remedy — the chance to have his parking violation reversed — is not free.
Over thirty state constitutions contain provisions similar or identical to article 14. Comment,
Article I, Section 19 of the Maine Constitution: The Forgotten Mandate,
21 Me. L.R. 83, 83 n.1 (1969). The section has its origin in the Magna Carta. J. Colby, Manual of the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire 96 (1902). Although historical research has disclosed no fixed meaning for the provision as a whole, the section is basically an equal protection clause in that it “ ‘implies that all litigants similarly situated may appeal to the courts both for relief and for defense under like conditions and with like protection and without discrimination.’ ”
Old Colony R.R. Co. v. Assessors,
The few cases that have considered whether the clause “to obtain right and justice freely, without being obliged to purchase it” bars appellate filing fees have answered in the negative. In Perce v. Hallett,
The Supreme Court of North Dakota sustained probate court fees against the same challenge stating that the constitutional provision “has generally been construed not to prohibit the imposition of reasonable court costs, and was aimed rather against the selling of justice by magistrates themselves, — that is to say, bribery, —■ than the imposition of reasonable fees.”
Malin v. LaMoure County,
The eight-dollar filing fee is moderate in amount and entirely insufficient to reimburse the state for the cost of the superior court’s operations.
Perce v. Hallett,
So ordered.