Rowe v. Yuba County

California Supreme Court

Rowe v. Yuba County

17 Cal. 61

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1860

StatusPublished

Cited by36 cases

This text of 17 Cal. 61 (Rowe v. Yuba County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rowe v. Yuba County, 17 Cal. 61 (Cal. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

Field, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Baldwin, J. and Cope, J concurring.

The only question presented for consideration by the record in this case is, whether an attorney and counsellor appointed by the Court of Sessions to defend a pauper prisoner arraigned before it on an indictment for felony, is entitled to charge the county for his professional services—the appointment being made upon the expression of a desire of the prisoner to have the assistance of counsel. [63]*63The plaintiffs were appointed in this way to defend several prisoners, and the account for their services was presented to the Board of Supervisors of the county, and by that body rejected. They then brought the present action, and recovered judgment, from which the county appeals.

We are clear that the action cannot be maintained. The Court of Sessions is not authorized to create any charge against the county, except in certain special cases, of which the employment of counsel for parties under indictment is not one. Besides, it is part of the general duty of counsel to render their professional services to persons accused of crime, who are destitute of means, upon the appointment of the Court, when not inconsistent with their' obligations to others; and for compensation, they must trust to the possible future ability of the parties. Counsel are not considered at liberty to reject, under circumstances of this character, the cause of the defenseless, because no provision for their compensation is made by law. The duty imposed in this way may, it is true, be carried to unreasonable length, so as to become exceedingly burdensome; but we have heard of no complaints of this character. It is usual for the Court to apportion the duty among the different members of the profession practicing before it, so as to render it as light upon each as possible.

The judgment must be reversed, and the Court below directed to enter judgment for the defendant; and it is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Field, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Baldwin, J. and Cope, J concurring.

The only question presented for consideration by the record in this case is, whether an attorney and counsellor appointed by the Court of Sessions to defend a pauper prisoner arraigned before it on an indictment for felony, is entitled to charge the county for his professional services—the appointment being made upon the expression of a desire of the prisoner to have the assistance of counsel. [63]*63The plaintiffs were appointed in this way to defend several prisoners, and the account for their services was presented to the Board of Supervisors of the county, and by that body rejected. They then brought the present action, and recovered judgment, from which the county appeals.

We are clear that the action cannot be maintained. The Court of Sessions is not authorized to create any charge against the county, except in certain special cases, of which the employment of counsel for parties under indictment is not one. Besides, it is part of the general duty of counsel to render their professional services to persons accused of crime, who are destitute of means, upon the appointment of the Court, when not inconsistent with their' obligations to others; and for compensation, they must trust to the possible future ability of the parties. Counsel are not considered at liberty to reject, under circumstances of this character, the cause of the defenseless, because no provision for their compensation is made by law. The duty imposed in this way may, it is true, be carried to unreasonable length, so as to become exceedingly burdensome; but we have heard of no complaints of this character. It is usual for the Court to apportion the duty among the different members of the profession practicing before it, so as to render it as light upon each as possible.

The judgment must be reversed, and the Court below directed to enter judgment for the defendant; and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Cal. 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowe-v-yuba-county-cal-1860.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack