'The appeal brings into controversy the alleged power of the Judge, upon conviction of a defendant and sentence to imprisonment in the county jail with direction that he be worked on the county road, to adjudge full costs against the county. It is conceded that the power to impose costs, either upon the county or the defendant, is of statutory origin and regulation. State v. Massey, 104 N. C., 877. The liability of the county for costs in criminal cases is now regulated by section 1283 of the Revisal, wherein the several statutes in force prior to 1 July, 1905, the date at which the Revisal became the statute law of the State, are codified. As applicable to this case, the county is made liable. , “If * * * the defendant * * * be convicted and unable to pay the costs, * * * the county shall pay the clerks, sheriffs, constables, justices and witnesses one-half their lawful fees only.” In capital felonies and other cases named in the section full fees are to be paid. It will be noted that in the enumeration of the officers whose fees are provided for the Solicitor is omitted. By reference to Revisal, sec. 2768, it will be seen that, where the party convicted is insolvent, thfe Solicitor shall receive one-half his usual fee. Section 1283 does not seem to provide for the payment of half fees by the county in any case where the defendant serves out a sentence on the public roads, except in New Hanover County. It would seem, therefore, that other counties are liable in case of conviction only “when the defendant is unable to pay the cost.” This fact is not found by the court in this case; but, as-no point is made in respect thereto, we will assume that the judgment is based upon that fact. It will be observed by reference to section 1355 that, when any county has made *599provision fox working convicts upon tbe public roads, it is made the duty of tbe Judge bolding court in such counties to sentence to imprisonment at bard labor on tbe public roads for such terms as are prescribed by law for imprisonment in tbe county jail. No provision is made in this section for cost, except where persons are imprisoned for nonpayment of cost, and in these they are to be detained only until they repay tbe county to tbe extent of tbe “half fees charged up against it/’ thus showing that tbe Legislature recognized tbe liability of tbe county in such cases only for half fees. We find nothing in tbe statutes authorizing judgment against tbe county in criminal cases, except those specially named, for more than half fees. Tbe judgment of bis Honor must be modified in that respect. Tbe county will pay half fees, unless tbe commissioners shall wish to raise tbe question of defendant’s insolvency, which they may do when motion is made to modify tbe judgment in tbe Superior Court.
Modified.