This was an action of assumpsit brought by Le Clerc against The Board of Supervisors of Crawford County, for services rendered as interpreter in the circuit and county courts of that county, claiming $230 therefor. Thе defendant in error recovered $116, the amount found by the jury.
The principal question, and the only one necessary to be decided in this case, arises upon the first and second instructions asked by the plaintiff below (defendant here), and given by the court to the jury, to wit: “1st. That the circuit and county courts have authority to emplоy an interpreter, if they deem it necessary, at the expense of the county.
“ 2d. If the jury find that the plaintiff has served in the capacity of an interpreter under the direction of said courts, he is entitled to a reаsonable compensation therefor from the county treasury; and that the jury were bound, therefore, to find for the plaintiff.”
The charge thus given is clearly erroneous. The judge seems not to have considered the distinction between the pow
Whenever jurisdiction of the cоurt vests as to the principal matter, the incidental points are included. Smart v. Wolf, 3 Term, 342. And certain implied powers must necessarily result to our courts of justice from the nature of their institution. United States v. Hudson & Goodwin,
A court of general jurisdiction, like our circuit courts, having charge of the grand jury and unlimited criminal jurisdiction (the costs of which are chiefly to be paid by the respective counties), deeming it nеcessary to expedite business, thereby assuming the costs of the court to the county, may appoint аn interpreter, or as many as it deems necessary, at the expense of the county, and this is a matter оf discretion and is addressed to the mind of the court, and such appointment is conclusive upon the county. The county of Crawford was peculiarly situated in this respect, and from the first organization of the district
Our circuit courts have the same power that the district courts had under the territorial government, to apppoint necessary agents to enforce the duties required of them by law, where the legislature had failed to provide those agents. And their decisions are equally conclusive against the counties, inasmuch as the constitution and statutes of our state have imposed these exрenses upon the counties, and made no other provision for their payment. The treasury, out of which the grand jury and cost of criminal prosecutions are to be paid, is also the one out of which an interpreter is to be paid. But suppose it be contended that this is not a matter of mere discretion addressеd to the mind of the court, and the act is not conclusive and can be reviewed. Then I reply, it is in the nature оf a judgment or decree, and can only be reviewed in a court of error. For it is a principle toо well settled to need any authorities cited to sustain it, that judgments of courts of general jurisdiction are never considered void until set aside by a superior court. No inferior court can inquire into the validity of such judgments; they are conclusive on the subject matter. In this case there was no appeal taken to a superior court, and the charge of the judge in this respect would have been correct so far as the services in the circuit court were concerned. That courts of general jurisdiction have the pоwer is clear. Such courts of general jurisdiction cannot be ousted except by express words of аn act of parliament or necessary implication. Shipman v. Herbert, 4 Term, 107; Carter v. Knight, 3 id., 442. This doctrine has always been held good in the supreme courts of the several states of this union. Burninghoven v. Martin,
We are of opinion that the charge of the county court, to the jury, was erroneous, and that the case be remanded back to said county court, to be proceeded in according to law.
Judgment reversed.