
    MONAHAN v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY.
    No. 14,703;
    March 28, 1892.
    29 Pac. 417.
    Constables—Mileage Fees.—Under Act of March 5, 1870, providing that constables shall receive mileage for “every mile necessarily traveled, in going only, in executing any warrant of arrest, subpoena, or venire, bringing up a prisoner on habeas corpus, taking prisoners before a magistrate or to prison,” a constable is entitled to mileage both for the distance traveled in going to make an arrest, and for that traveled in bringing his prisoner from the place of arrest to the magistrate or to prison. -Allen v. Napa County, 82 Cal. 187, 23 Pac. 43, followed.
    APPEAL from Superior Court, San Diego County; W. L. Pierce, Judge.
    Action by T. J. Monahan against the county of San Diego for fees as constable in criminal eases. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    Hunsaker, Britt & Goodrich for appellant; Leonard Goodwin and Works, Gibson & Titus for respondent.
   VANCLIEF, C.

The plaintiff, as a constable, charged the defendant fees for services in criminal cases, amounting to $578.75, and presented to the board of supervisors his verified, itemized bill for this amount. The board allowed his claim to the extent of $384, but rejected it for the balance of $194.95, on the ground that the charge for the sum rejected was for “mileage in bringing various persons arrested by him from the place of arrest to the court from which the warrant of arrest was issued, or from the place of arrest to the county jail, in addition to mileage for going from the place where said process was issued to the place where the arrest was made; that is to say, .... claimed mileage for both going to arrest such persons, and for bringing' such persons before the magistrate or to prison from the place of arrest.” Plaintiff sued and recovered judgment for his entire demand. The defendant brings this appeal from the judgment on the judgment-roll.

The questions presented were decided adversely to appellant’s contention in Allen v. Napa County, 82 Cal. 187, 23 Pac. 43, following Cunningham v. San Joaquin County, 49 Cal. 323. I think the judgment should be affirmed.

We concur: Fitzgerald, C.; Belcher, C.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment is affirmed.  