The union Democrat., 1870-05-07
supreme Coar, Decisions,

=
The following decision made in the case Of
Trout vs.. Gardiner, is important as settling
the rights of Assessors and Sherifs who were
elected as Tax collectors at the September
election of 1869:
APRIL TERN, 1870.
Trout rs. Ganiiaer No. 2,39o. The
question presented in this case is. whether
the applicant. Trout, is, hy virtue of mis- Office
as Sheriff Of ruolamae County, ex-oficio tax
collector for said county. from and after the
first Monday of March, 1870; and the answer
to that question depends upon whether, at
the time Of the election Of applicant to the
Office of sheriff of said county, at the general
election held on the first day of September,
| 1869, he was So elected with view eft his
discharging the duties Of tex collector for said
county by virtue of his offce as sheriff, in
pursuance of the Act of March oS, 1865, en-
titled IAN Act to regulate salaries and for
the compensation of certain county officers. y
| 1t is contended by respondent, Gardiner,
that the above Act, by its term, did not take
effect and had no validity of force for any
purpose, until the first Monday of March,
1870; hence at the date of applicants cleo
tion to the Office of sheriff in September, 1869,
there being no law in force devolvins the du-
ties of the office of tax collector for the county
of Tuolumne, upen the sheriff of said county,
applicant could not have been elected to the
Office Of tax collector at the time he was elected
sheriff, nor could he have been elected to the
Office of sheriff with the view intention on
tie part Of the electors of said county of his
discharging the duties Of tax collector by vir-
tune of his Office as sheriff.
Upon a careful review and consideration
of the whole Act above referred to, it is clear
Y manifest that come portions of the Act took
effect, aud were required to be acted upon as
of vital force and authority, at and prior to
the general election for county officers in Sep
tember, 1869.
The third section of the Act provides that
in counties wherein township or district as
SCISSORS then existed, elections for county as
SCISSORS should take place at the general elec-
ton in the year 1869 and in section nine
of said Act, it is procided that in the county
of Alameda Ia county in which at that time
the county clerk was eS-o1fcio county record
err county recorder should be elected at
the general election in 1869.
Thus it will be seen by the direct terms of
the Act itself, action was to. be taken under
and by virtue of its provisions prior to the
FIRST Monday of March, 1870, when, as pro-
vided bv the last section of the Act, it was to
30 in full operation.
When, to accomplish the purpose Of the
Act, an additional officer or new office was
required and created by the Act, the election
of such officer was required to be had at the
general election of 1869. The Act then clear
ly was intended to be in force. or take effect
50 far as necessary to provide the proper
agents CT machinery to carry the Act in full
force and effect, sixty DAYS after its passage,
or at the time provided for the taking effect
of statute. when no specific time is men
toned: and in other respects it was not in
tended to 90 into full force and operation un-
til the first Monday of March, 1870, when
The terms of most of the county officers, whose
fees and salaries were affected thereby, would
expire. Previous to, and at the time of. the
passage of the Act, the county of Tuolumne
and some other counties of the State were di-
vided into revenue districts, and district as
SCISSORS and collectors of taxes were provided
for each district, instead Of one assessor and
tax collector for the entire county, so that
under the system provided by this Few Act,
it became necessary to provide county as
SCISSOR in such counties and this officer was
required to be elected at the general election
in 1869, this being an office not then existing
in those counties hut the duties of the office
of tax collector for such counties having, by
the terms of the Act, devolved upon the sher-
iif of the county er-obScio, from and after the
first Monday in March, 1870 and the Office
of sheriff being an Office then existing in said
county, and the election of such officer being
provided for ly other laws then in force, it
was not deemed necessary to specially pro-
vide In the Act for the election of county
fax collector, as the duties of this Office were,
by the terms of the Act, dc*olved upon the
sheriff of the county, who, at the general
election in 1869. was to be elected with the
view of disch arging the duties of tax collector
for the county. on the Act going into full
force and effect, on the first Monday of
March. 1870.
This being our view Of the evident inten
ton of the Legislature, as gathered from a
reading of the whole Act, it follows that the
applicant, Trout, who was elected sheriff of
Tuolumae county, ct the general election in
1869, and duly qualified as sheriff, and also
as tax collector for such county. on or before
the first Monday of March, 1870, was on that
day. and since has been the duly elected and
qualified tax collector for said county, and as
such. is entitled to demand and receive from
the respondent. as auditor of said county. the
licenses required for the performance of his
duties as such tax collector.
Let the mandate issue as prayed for.
SPRAGUE. j.
We concur: WALLACE. j.; RHODES, c. j.;
CROCKETT, j. TEMPLE, j.
gsyVLat ba~o x,o,, syot that's cood 2' said n