# State v. . Nash

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · September 5, 1891 · 109 N.C. 822

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3675634

## Case

- **Full name:** The State v. H. A. Nash
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** September 5, 1891
- **Citations:** 109 N.C. 822; 13 S.E. 733
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Clark
- **Judges:** Clark
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3675634

## Opinion text

Clark, J.:
The defendant, who did not appeal in
forma pauperis,
but has executed his appeal bond, refused to pay the costs of the transcript of the record on appeal. The Clerk
*823
thereupon declined to send itup. The application for
certiorari
therefore presents the question whether, in criminal actions, the Clerk can require the cost of the transcript to be paid in advance. It is settled that in civil cases he can.
Andrews
v
Whisnant,
83 N. C., 446 ;
Bailey
v.
Brown,
105 N. C., 127 .
But in criminal actions it is otherwise.
The Code,
§ 3758, provides, “ No officer shall be compelled to perform any services unless his fee be paid or tendered,
except in criminal actions.”
This inhibition against requiring payment of fees in advance in criminal actions, we think, embraces all services, including that in question.
We are strengthened in this view by the fact that it has been held that the appeal bond secures only the costs of the appellee, and not of the appellant.
Morris
v.
Morris,
92 N. C., 142 , and cases cited, and, hence, when such bond is dispensed with in civil cases, by leave to appeal in
forma pau-peris,
the appellant may still be required by the Clerk to pay for the cost of the transcript on appeal and his cost in this Court as well.
Martin
v.
Chasteen,
75 N. C., 96 ;
Andrews
v.
Whisnant ,
and
Bailey
v.
Brown, supra.
The reason of this distinction is that section 212, allowing a party to
sue
as a pauper, exempts him from paying fees to any officer, but section 553, allowing an
appeal informa pau-peris,
is more restricted, and only exempts the appellant from-giving bond to secure the appellee’s costs, leaving him to pay his own costs, if exacted, if he chooses to appeal to another tribunal after having, had gratuitous services from all officers in the lower Courts.
If the same rule prevailed in criminal actions, it would follow that all appellants in such cases, as well as those appealing
in forma pauperis as others,
would be compelled to prepay the costs of the transcript and the costs in this Court, if demanded. Such is not our understanding of the statute.
The Code,
§ 3758.
An instahter
certiorari
should issue to bring up the transcript. Motion allowed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3675634. Public record. Not legal advice.