of adverse legal claims or of judgments rendered by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction, including statutory costs, is, without question, legal,832 as well as of the payment of the debts of a public corporation.838 § 419. Statutory costs. In addition to the disbursements authorized by the court or a public policy, there are others of a public character which, by constitutional or statutory provision, are made a charge upon dif 732 In re Substitute for Senate Bill No. 83, 21 Colo. 69, 39 Pac. 1088; City of Edwardsville v. Barnsback, 66 Ill. App. 381; King v. Village of Randolph, 28 App. Div. 25, 50 N. Y. Supp. 902; Metschan v. Hyde, 36 Or. 117, 58 Pac. 80. 833 State v. Dorland, 106 Iowa, 40. "Code 1897, § 5462, relating to criminal cases and providing that, in case of a reversal or modification in defendant's favor, of the judgment he shall be entitled to recover the costs of printing briefs on appeal, to be paid by the county from which the appeal was taken, applies to suits pending at its passage. Under Code 1897, § 5462, providing that a defendant in a criminal prosecution shall, when he receives a reversal or modification of the judgment in his favor on appeal, 'be entitled to recover the cost of printing abstracts and briefs,' to be paid by the county, such allowance is to be taxed as costs against the county." Bevington v. Woodbury County, 107 Iowa, 424, holds in this connection, "Acts 21st Gen. Assemb. c. 73, § 11, fixing the compensation of the county attorney; and section six prohibiting such of ficer from receiving any fee or reward from or on behalf of any pros ecutor or other individuals for services in any prosecution or business to which it has been his official duty to attend, interposes no obstacle to the employment of the county attorney by the board of supervisors of the county in which certain criminal proceedings had been brought to attend to the prosecution of such causes in another county to which they had been taken on a change of venue, where such board had power to contract with any attorney for such services." City of Des Moines v. Polk County, 107 Iowa, 525. "Acts 17th Gen. Assemb. c. 56 provides, (§ 1) that all cities of the first class may provide by ordinance for the payment of salaries to officers and (§ 2) that all fees allowed by law for their services shall, by such officers, when collected, be paid into the city treasury. Held, that where a city has so prescribed, by ordinance, it may maintain an action against the county for fees earned by such offi cers in vagrancy cases, it being the party in interest, within Code 1873, §§ 2543, 2544." Greer County Com'rs v. Watson, 7 Okl. 174, (syllabus by the court) "Costs are unknown to the common law, and the sovereignty neither ferent organizations. Statutory costs or fees are those incurred, ordinarily, in what can be termed, "the administration of public justice;" this purpose, it is universally recognized, is not only a necessary object of government but one of the highest for which it is organized. The cost of maintaining places of imprisonment with the care and lodging of those confined,s 834 the payment of the fees of jurors,835 witnesses,836 sheriff's, or officers of a similar character,s 887 and other necessary fees or expenses in connection with holding terms of court or the trial of criminal 835 Greene County v. Hale County, 61 Ala. 72. But see Hilton v. Curry, 124 Cal. 84. 836 Polk County v. Crocker, 112 Ga. 152, 37 S. E. 178. The fees of witnesses examined before a grand jury held not a public charge. People v. Hull, 23 Misc. 63, 50 N. Y. Supp. 463; People v. Jefferson County Sup'rs, 35 App. Div. 239, 54 N. v. Watson, 7 Okl. 174, 54 Pac. 441. In the absence of a law making a county liable for the fees of grand jury witnesses or those attending criminal cases for the prosecution, they cannot be a public charge. But see Salt Lake County v. Richards, 14 Utah, 142. took nor paid costs and the territory or a county is only liable for costs when such liability is expressly created by statute. A county is not a party to a criminal prosecution and is not liable for fees of witnesses attending before the grand jury or a court in a criminal case, in the absence of a statute imposing such liability." Henderson v. Walker, 101 Tenn. 229. Costs are Y. Supp. 782; Green County Com'rs properly taxable to the county and a legitimate item of expense under the statutory provisions relating to the taxation of costs. Perkins v. Grafton County, 67 N. H. 282. "Gen. Laws, c. 285, § 4, prescribes that every jailer shall provide each prisoner in his custody with necessary medical attendance. § 11 that, when a prisoner is removed from one county to another, the expenses are chargeable to the county from which he is removed. Held, that a physician who attended a prisoner at the request of the jailer of the county to which he is removed has a cause of action therefor against the county from which he is removed." See, also, §§ 143 and 305, supra. 834 Finney County Com'rs v. Gray County Com'rs, 8 Kan. App. 745, 54 Pac. 1100; Gates v. Johnson County, 36 Tex. 144. 837 Carlisle V. Tulare County (Cal.) 49 Pac. 3; Marion County v. Lear, 108 Ill. 343; Rawley v. Vigo County Com'rs, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 355. No liability where the prosecution fails. Randolph County Com'rs v. Henry County Com'rs, 27 Ind. App. 378, 61 N. E. 612; Greenwood County Com'rs v. Elk County Com'rs, 63 Kan. 857, 66 Pac. 1018; Ford v. Howard County Circ. Ct., Mo. 225; James v. Lincoln County, 5 Neb. 38; People v. Clinton, 28 App. Div. 478, 51 N. Y. Supp. 115; Lancaster County v. Brinthall, 29 Pa. 38. 2 causes,838 and enforcing the laws of a state or community,839 including attorneys fees.840 The cost of summoning witnesses or other fees for defendants in criminal prosecutions are not usually a charge upon the public, nor the fees of officers rendering services for private individuals.842 But all statutory provisions in regard to the steps prescribing the manner in which or the various steps to be performed in the trial of the cause in which a public corporation may be interested should be strictly followed by public officials to acquire the right to collect their fees or expenses from the public authorities. As against the right to recover, such laws are strictly construed.843 838 Branson 37. V. Larimer County v. Standley, 79 Iowa, 666; WorcesCom'rs, 5 Colo. App. 231; Clark ter County Com'rs v. Melvin, 89 Md. School Tp. v. Grossius, 20 Ind. App. 322; Finney County Com'rs v. Gray County Com'rs, 8 Kan. App. 745; Lovejoy v. Inhabitants of Foxcroft, 91 Me. 367; Howard County Com'rs v. Frederick County Com'rs, 30 Md. 432; People v. Manistee County Sup'rs, 26 Mich. 422; Miner v. Shiawassee County Sup'rs, 49 Mich. 602; Washoe County v. Humboldt County, 14 Nev. 123; People v. Vanderpoel, 35 App. Div. 73, 54 N. Y. Supp. 436. The expenses of a public officer not required by law to defend a case brought against him in an official capacity cannot be recovered from the town. Pegram v. Guilford County Com'rs, 75 N. C. 120; Lycoming v. Union, 15 Pa. 166; State v. Evenson, 18 Wash. 609; Williams v. Dodge County, 95 Wis. 604. $39 Independence County v. Duncan, 40 Ark. 329; People v. Washington County Sup'rs, 66 App. Div. 66, 72 N. Y. Supp. 568. 840 Tatlock v. Louisa County, 46 Iowa, 138; Jordan v. Osceola County, 59 Iowa, 388; Bevington v. Woodbury County, 107 Iowa, 424, 78 N. W. 222, following Taylor County 841 Cohen v. Coleman, 71 Ala. 496; In re Straus, 44 App. Div. 425, 61 N. Y. Supp. 37. The expenses of a person indicted for a criminal offense in connection with his official duties cannot be a public charge and N. Y. Laws 1899, c. 700, § 1, et sequenter, are therefore unconstitutional. See, also, as construing the same laws, In re Labrake, 29 Misc. 87, 60 N. Y. Supp. 571. Huntingdon County v. Com., 72 Pa. 80; Henderson v. Evans, 51 S. C. 331, 29 S. E. 5, 40 L. R. A. 426; Hutt V. Winnebago County Sup'rs, 19 Wis. 128. 842 Kinney v. Kent County Sup'rs, 51 Mich. 620. 843 Malone v. Escambia County, 116 Ala. 214; Powers v. Sullivan County, 63 N. H. 275; Clerk's Office v. Carteret County Com'rs, 121 N. C. 29, 27 S. E. 1003; Bunting v. Wake County Com'rs, 74 N. C. 633; Guilford v. Beaufort County Com'rs, 120 N. C. 23; York County Com'rs v. Jacobs, 3 Pen. & W. (Pa.) 365; Conley v. York County, 5 Pa. Dist. R. 748; Agnew v. Cumberland County Com'rs, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 94; $ 420. Public buildings. 844 The construction and maintenance of public buildings for the housing of public officials and protection of public records and the use of various classes over which public corporations are required to exercise restraint and provide protection are clearly legitimate purposes for the use of public moneys. Questions only arise in connection with this subject concerning specific authority or lack of it.845 The power as granted to state agencies, whether boards or officials, depends almost entirely upon the construction of local statutes or ordinances.846 But it is quite true Crawford County v. Barr, 92 Pa. 359; Randles v. Waukesha County, 96 Wis. 629. 844 People v. Harris, 4 Cal. 9. But compare Vanover v. Davis, 27 Ga. 354. Allen v. Lytle, 114 Ga. 275, 40 S. E. 238; Hall v. City of Virginia, 91 Ill. 535. A private subscription to aid in constructing a public building can be enforced. Trustees of House of Reform v. City of Lexing ton, 23 Ky. L. R. 1470, 65 S. W. 350; Spaulding v. City of Lowell, 40 Mass. (23 Pick.) 71; State v. McCardy, 62 Minn. 509; State v. Ehrmantraut, 63 Minn. 104; French v. City of Millville, 66 N. J. Law, 392, 49 Atl. 465. Where the authority to construct a public building exists, it carries with it the implied power to enforce it. Affirmed in 67 N. J. Law, 349, 51 Atl. 1109. Smith v. City of Newbern, 70 N. C. 14. The authority granted a town "to make all such necessary ordinances, rules and orders as may tend to the advantage, improvement and good government of the town," confers the discretionary power to erect a market house or to lease a building for such purpose. State v. Metschan, 32 Or. 372, 41 L. R. A. 692. Under Or. Const. art. 14, § 3, all state institutions must be locat ed at the seat of government. Laws 1893, p. 136, authorizing the establishment and maintenance of a branch insane asylum elsewhere are, therefore, void. Cresswell Ranch & Cattle Co. v. Roberts County (Tex. Civ. App.) 27 S. W. 737. Where the authority exists, the question of the propriety of the construction of a building is usually within the discretion of the official charged with such duty. Hanley v. Randolph County Ct., 50 W. Va. 439, 40 S. E. 389; Mills v. Gleason, 11 Wis. 470. 845 DeWitt v. City of San Francisco, 2 Cal. 289. The power to construct a public building conveys with it the implied power to purchase land upon which to erect it. See, also, Witter v. Polk County Sup'rs, 112 Iowa, 380, 83 N. W. 1041; Kepley v. Prather, 52 Kan. 9, and People v. City of Rochester, 50 N. Y. 525. Wells v. Ragsdale, 102 Ga. 853, 29 S. E. 165; Hunnicutt v. City of Atlanta, 104 Ga. 1, 30 S. E. 500; Rothrock v. Carr, 55 Ind. 334; Louisville & N. W. R. Co. v. Police Jury of Bienville Parish, 48 La. Ann. 331; Thomas v. Adsit, 116 Mich. 106, 74 N. W. 381. 846 Ex parte Buckner, 9 Ark. 73. Durrett v. Buxton, 63 Ark. 397. that there should be special authority from the legislature for the construction of public buildings even where there are surplus funds to accomplish this without the levy of additional taxes or the incurring of indebtedness for such purpose. 847 The principle The levy of a tax for the construction of a court house is equivalent to an "appropriation" within art. 16, § 12, of the constitution. See, also, Hilliard v. Bunker, 68 Ark. 340. Babcock v. Goodrich, 47 Cal. 488; White v. Town of Stamford, 37 Conn. 578; Carruth v. Wagener, 114 Ga. 740, 40 S. E. 700; Rock v. Rinehart, 88 Iowa, 37, 55 N. W. 21, construing Iowa Laws 1876, c. 80, § 1, and Laws 1862, c. 77; Jones v. Pendleton County Ct. (Ky.) 19 S. W. 740, construing Ky. Gen. St. c. 86, §4; Friend v. Gilbert, 108 Mass. 408; Foster v. City of Worcester, 164 Mass. 419, construing Mass. St. 1885, c. 139 and Pub. St. c. 54, § 16; Gaston v. Lamkin, 115 Mo. 20, 21 S. W. 1100, construing Mo. Rev. St. 1889, § 852; Drew v. West Orange Tp., 64 N. J. Law, 481, 45 Atl. 787; Lowthorp v. Inhabitants of Trenton, 62 N. J. Law, 795. Holding act of March 5, 1896, providing for the purchase of land and construction of school buildings unconstitutional as violating constitution, art. 4, § 7, pl. 11. Torrey son v. Board of Examiners, 7 Nev. 19, construing Nev. St. 1869, c. 73 and 1871, c. 154; Bradley v. Van Wyck, 65 App. Div. 293, 72 N. Y. Supp. 1034; Barker v. Town of Floyd, 61 App. Div. 92, 69 N. Y. Supp. 1109, affirming 32 Misc. 474, 66 N. Y. Supp. 216, and holding that N. Y. Laws 1890, c. 568, commonly known as the "Town Law" repealed by implication all prior legislation relating to the erection of town schools. Town Board of Jamaica v. Denton, 70 N. Y. Supp. 837; Jamaica Sav. Bank v. City of New York, 61 App. Div. 464, 70 N. Y. Supp. 967; Black v. Buncombe County Com'rs, 129 N. C. 121, 39 S. E. 818; Vaughn v. Forsyth County Com'rs, 117 N. C. 429, holding laws of 1889, c. 343, as superseded by laws of 1895, c. 135. Carter v. Thorson, 5 S. D. 474, 24 L. R. A. 734. Nichols v. State, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 327, 32 S. W. 452. The cost of construction is limited strictly to the amount authorized. 847 Thompson V. Town of Luverne, 128 Ala. 567, 29 So. 326. It also follows that such statutory authority must be constitutional. Russell v. Tate, 52 Ark. 541, 7 L. R. A. 180. Under Ark. Const. 1874, art. 12, § 5, a town has no power to appropriate money to aid the building of a court house within its limits. Hilliard v. Bunker, 68 Ark. 340; Commissioners of Roads & Revenues v. Porter Mfg. Co., 103 Ga. 613, 30 S. E. 547. Jackson County Com'rs v. State, 155 Ind. 604, 58 N. E. 1037. A tax levied for the construction of public buildings is invalid where it contravenes Ind. Const. art. 4, § 22. Hull v. Marshall County, 12 Iowa, 142. Rock v. Rinehart, 88 Iowa, 37, 55 N. W. 21. Public buildings may be constructed from the proceeds of the sale of swamp and overflowed lands by a county. Queens County Sup'rs v. Phipps, 35 App. Div. 350, |