Needham v. Thresher
Needham v. Thresher
Opinion of the Court
1. It is unnecessary to consider in this case whether it would have been competent to the Legislature to give to the Act of February 28, 1874, a retrospective operation, so as to constitute the expenses already at that time accrued on the trial of Bennett a charge upon the treasury of the County of San Joaquin. The facts of the case bring it within the provisions of the Act of April 29, 1851 (p. 185), “An Act concerning the costs of criminal actions removed before trial.”
2. Nor is there any doubt that the latter Act is yet in force, notwithstanding it is stated by the Code Commissioners, in the “volume of statutes continued in force” (Sec. 664), that it is expressly repealed by the provisions of the Penal Code.
After a careful examination of the entire body of the statutes, we have been unable to find any Act repealing it. It should be observed tint the “volume of statutes con
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- W. L. NEEDHAM v. M. S. THRESHER, Treasurer of the County of San Joaquin
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Costs in Cbiminai, Actions.—Under the Act of 1851, concerning the costs of criminal actions, if a case is removed from the county where the indictment was found, for trial in another county, the county where the indictment was found is liable for the fees of the Sheriff of the county to which the cause was removed, and the Auditor of the latter county may draw his warrant on the Treasurer of the former for the same, and mandamus will lie to compel such Treasurer to'pay it. Act in Fobce:—The Act of April 29, 1851, concerning costs in criminal actions (Stats. 1851, p. 185), is still in force, and was not repealed by the Penal Code. Statutes Continued in Fobce by the Codes.—The volume of statutes continued in force, published by the Code Commissioners, has not received the legislative sanction, and is not, therefore, authority.