Prince v. City of Fresno

California Supreme Court Mar 21, 1891 No. No. 13791Published

Before: Foote

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a city recorder, when exercising jurisdiction over criminal matters under the state Penal Code, acts as a justice of the peace and is entitled to collect fees from the county rather than the city. Consequently, fines collected for such state law violations must be paid to the county treasurer.

Issues

Whether a city recorder acts as a justice of the peace when presiding over criminal prosecutions under the state Penal Code.
Whether the county or the city is liable for the recorder's fees in state criminal cases.
Whether fines collected by a recorder for state Penal Code violations must be paid to the county treasurer.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“as to such matters as are given him in charge as a justice of the peace, the recorder is such an officer, and not a police judge.”

“he must be paid for such services as he may perform as such, by the county, like any justice of the peace in a township of a county.”

“And the fines are subject to the same disposition as if he had imposed them as such justice of the peace.”

Synopsis

City Recorder — Dual Jurisdiction. — Under the Municipal Corporation Act the recorder of a city may have a dual jurisdiction and functions, and may be a justice of the peace as to some matters, and a recorder as to others.

Zp.—Jurisdiction as Justice of the Peace—Penal Code — Fees — County Charges. — Under sections 806 et seq. of that act, a city recorder possesses the right to act as a justice of the peace, and is, to all intents and purposes, a justice of the peace as to all criminal matters coming before him under the Penal Code, as distinct from the city ordinances; and when acting under that code he has authority to charge the county and receive for his services such fees as are allowed by law to justices of the peace in a township of a county for like services.

Foote, C. This action was tried upon an agreed state of facts, under sections 1138 and 1140 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff is the duly elected and qualified recorder of the city of Fresno, which is a city of the fifth class under the laws of the state.

During the months of April, May, June, July, August, and September, 1889, he “ collected fines in his court from parties convicted therein of violations of various provisions of the Penal Code of the state of California, as distinguished from violations of the ordinances of the city of Fresno, to the amount of $646.90.” He presented to the city his bill for fees claimed to be due him, earned during that time, in substance, as follows: For fees in cases where fines were collected for violations of the Penal Code of the state, $175. For fees in cases where fines were not collected for violations of the Penal Code, $319.25. Total fees claimed, $494.25. The city refused to allow the bill in whole or in part.

The county came in as an intervenor, claiming to be interested in the suit, and it is set out in the agreed facts that “if it be determined that the city is not liable to the recorder for said fees, then the county is liable, it being unquestioned that either the city or county is so liable. And if the determination of this suit is adverse to the recorder, the plaintiff, then the fines collected as aforesaid, to wit, the said sum of $646.90, should be paid in to the county treasurer. Wherefore it is prayed that the [409]questions raised by the facts above stated be determined by this court and judgment entered accordingly.”

Judgment was rendered “that plaintiff pay to the county treasurer of the said county of Fresno, intervenor herein, all fines heretofore imposed by him for violations of the provisions of the Penal Code, and paid after commitment, and the residue of all such fines paid before commitment, after deducting therefrom the expenses of the prosecution in cases in which said fines were imposed, and that the intervenor, by its proper officers, agents, and representatives, audit and pay to plaintiff for his services heretofore ren dered in cases of violations of the provisions of the Penal Code the same fees and compensation as are allowed by law to justices of the peace in like cases.”

The recorder’s court of the city of Fresno, its jurisdiction, rules, practice, and procedure, are established by section 806 of the act entitled “ Municipal Corporation Bill.” (Deering’s Pol. Code, p. 830.)

Prince v. City of Fresno

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief