The act which passed in the year 1816, Rev. ch. 905. directs that the clerks of the County Courts shall issue summons, ex officio, against all guardians who shall fail to appear and exhibit their accounts at the-times required by law, and for such service shall be entitled to sixty cents; and the act passed in the year 1820, Rev. ch. 1039, directs notice to be given by way of scire facias to guardians who have failed to renew' their bonds as the law requires; but no provision is made in either of these acts, for either employing the state’s attorney, hr taxing a fee for his use; neither is any such provision made in the act of 1762, Rev. ch. 69. where the duty of guardians is fully prescribed and pointed out; nor can I find any provision for such taxation in any other law. I am, therefore, compelled to say, that judgment should be entered for the appellant.
County Court of Randolph v. Johnson, 10 N.C. 238, 3 Hawks 238 (1824)
County Court of Randolph v. Johnson.
I I From Randolph; J
A county attorney is not entitled to have a fee taxed for his benefit oh a scire facias issued to a guardiari under the act of 1820.
The defendant had been appointed guardian to an infant of Randolph, by the County Court, and failed to renew his guardian bond pursuant to act of assembly; whereupon a notice issued to him to appear and show cause wherefore he had not done so. On the return of this notice, the County Court dismissed the proceedings at the defendant’s cost, and in the bill of costs a- fee of four dollars was taxed for the county attorney. This was a motion to amend the taxation of costs, by striking out the fee for the attorney; and was presented to this Court on the appeal of the defendant, from the refusal of his honor Judge Norwood to amend the taxation as moved for.