defendant, under the provisions of the county government act to pay the money in controversy into the county treasury, or had he a right to retain it for his own use under the provisions of the last named act."

*

*

*

The court then cites the case of Adams v. San Francisco, 50 Cal. 117, and says: "The case is in point here The cir'cumstances too are alike. The plaintiff in that case asserted rights under the codes, which were passed after the act of 1861, and the defendant here asserts the same rights under the act of 1885, which was passed after the county government act." The lower court decided that the moneys should be paid into the county treasury, and that decision was affirmed.

Section 164 (renumbered Sec. 211, by act of March 18th, 1885) was amended in 1887 by inserting a clause to the effect that in counties of certain specified classes, whenever, in the opinion of the board of supervisors, the salary of any county officer is insufficient to pay a reasonable compensation for services required of him, the board could allow such officer deputies at a salary to be paid in the same manner as the salary of the principal. [Stats. 1887, p 207]. This provision was held unconstitutional in Dougherty v. Austin, 94 Cal. 603. Then followed the cases of Green v. Fresno County, 95 Cal. 329; People v. Johnson, 95 Cal. 471; and other cases which have been several times cited in this volume to the effect that legislation as to compensation

of county officers cannot be special, local or eccentric, but must be general and uniform in operation, except that compensation must be regulated in proportion to duties, and for this purpose the counties may be classified; and, that the legislative power of providing officers and fixing their compensation cannot be delegated; and that the compensation of officers cannot be increased during their incumbency; and that what is proper compensation is a question to be determined by the legislature.

The assessor is entitled to retain six per cent. of the personal property tax collected under the provisions of section 3820 of Political Code. County of San Francisco v. Meloney, 71 Cal. 206.

And fifteen (formerly twenty) per cent. of the poll taxes collected. This provision of section 164 of the act of 1883, by implication repealed section 3770, Political Code, which provided for a five per cent. delinquency and fifty cents to be added to each delinquent parcel of real estate, one-half of which should go to the county and the other half to the collector for making the list. County of Orange v. Harris, 97 Cal. 601.

Subdivisions 21 and 23 of section 170 of the county government act of 1891, providing for compensation of the assistants of district attorneys in counties of the eighth class, was held to be unconstitutional as special and local legislation, in Welsh v. Bramlett, 98 Cal. 220, and in Walser v. Austin, 104 Cal. 129. The same provision was retained in the county

government act of 1893 [Stats. p. 410], and by subdivision 36 of section 25 of that act it was also provided that the board might authorize district attorneys to appoint assistants, and it was declared that the office of assistant district attorney was thereby created, and the salary was fixed at fifteen hundred dollars per annum. There is no corresponding provision in the present act, but various provisions respecting deputies and assistant district attorneys are contained in sections regulating compensation of officers.

Section 182 of the county government act of 1891 [Stats. p. 376], gave the auditor of counties of the twentieth class a salary of eighteen hundred dollars, and one deputy at a monthly salary not to exceed fifty dollars, and this provision was held not to be unconstitutional in Farnum v. Warner, 104 Cal. 677.

As to the manner in which local acts regulating and fixing compensation, including sections 3704, 3894 and 3895, Political Code, were superseded and repealed by section 164 of the act of 1883. See Lynch v. Butte County, 102 Cal. 446. And see Bark v. Yolo County, 104 Cal. 258, where it is said repeals by implication are not favored, and that section 1770 of the Political Code as amended March 15, 1889, was not repealed by sections 180 and 211 of the county government act as amended March 15, 1889. Section 1770, as amended, allowed members of the board of education five dollars per day, including the secretary of the board. Section 180, referred to, did not

mention members of the board of education. Section 211 declared, as section 215 of the present does, that the fees and salaries allowed by the act shall be in full, etc., and there was no repealing clause to that amendatory

act.

The provision relating to sheriffs and the allowance of his necessary expenses in pursuing criminals is passed upon in Overall v. Tulare County, 100 Cal. 61, and it was held that he was not entitled under the act of 1870 [Stats. p. 159], fixing the salary of sheriff for Tulare county, to mileage for the distance traveled in an unsuccessful search, for persons charged with crime, and that under the county government act he was not entitled to mileage for making arrests at a town in his county, distant from the county seat, where the arrests were made without the issuance of a warrant, and when he did not go with the intention of making the arrest or with knowledge that the offenses had been committed.

As to the compensation for conveying prisoners and insane persons, this act expressly provides that the sheriff shall retain the same to his own use, and differs from the provisions of the act of 1883. Considered in County of Santa Clara v. Branham, 77 Cal. 593, already cited in this note.

The fees allowed by the court to the sheriff for keeping property taken under attachment proceedings must be allowed, by order, in the suit in which the attachment issued, and not in some other action; there must be an order,

and not a mere verbal direction by the judge. Shumway v. Leakey, 73 Cal. 261.

Fees to be paid into the county treasury.

SEC. 216. All salaried officers of the several counties of this state shall charge and collect for the use of their respective counties, and pay into the county treasury, on the first Monday in each month, the fees now or hereafter allowed by law in all cases, except where such fees, or a percentage thereof, is allowed such officers, and excepting also such fees as are a charge against the county.

Section 165 of act of 1883, and section 217 of acts of 1891, 1893.

See section 4334, Political Code, and last notes under section 158, ante, page 296 and see next two sections, and as to meaning of fees and "percentages" see Smith v. Dunn, 68 Cal. 56.

Fee book.

SEC. 217. Each of the officers authorized to receive fees under the provisions of this act must keep a fee book, open to the public inspection during office hours, in which must be entered, at once and in detail all fees or compensation, of whatever nature, kind, or description, collected or chargeable. On the first Monday of each and every month, the officer must add up each column in his book to the first day of the month, and set down the totals. On the expiration of the term of such officer, he must deliver all fee books kept by him to the county auditor.

Section 166 of act of 1883, and section 218 of acts of 1891 and 1893.

Statement of fees.

SEC. 218. The fees and compensation collected and chargeable for the county in each month shall