The Lake County star. [volume] (Chase, Mich.) 1873-current, 1878-01-10

| Tile tiule, uhu III iosey -iou ooSs~ss"t 49,
| for tire prices, and tU the persons as
have before stated; aud that orders for
this work were drawn by the repsond-
ent, one in favor Of Ross and another
In favor of Chick; each In the sum OF
eighty dollars, and numbered 81 and
So, respectively. That these orders
were duly delivered to these persons
| by respondent.
1t Is disputed that these jobs were let
at price grossly In excess OF their true
| value, or ut all In excess Of their true
value.
In reference to this question of value,
there Is evidence tending to show that
] the respondent, previous to the letting
of these jobs, purchased the pine TIM
ber suitable for logs, which was stand
ing within the limits of these jobs, and
let the jobs, including the cutting OF
| this tiNlbcr with tho other timber. but
Of these two questions ] will speak
again.
THE first question Of law which pre-
sents itself is as to the authority OF Mr..
Taylor to let these jobs In the manner
In which he did.
The statute provides that whenever
the Commissioner Of Highways shall
determine t@ appropriate amy portion
over ten dollars of the moneys accruing
to their township OH account OF non
resident highway taxes In the repairing
Or construction of roads or bridges
therein, they shall contract ut public
auction, to the lowest bidder giving
good and sufficient security for the per-
formauce thereof; aud not less than
ten days notice shall be given by said
Commissioner of time and place of let
| H.. IN slIctl
notice in ut least three OF tile most pub
| lie places in the township.
This statute does not authorize the
letting of jobs ts Ross and Chick in tho
manner these jobs were let. Here was
an appropriation of one hundred and
sixty dollars OH continuous line OF
highway, two miles In length.
This il plain, palpable violation of
law. There Is no seinblance Of author
ity fer 1t.
The drawing Of orders in satisfaction
Of this work, at the time these orders
were drawn. was the drawing Of orders
for II purpose not authorized by law.
This il 80 because neither Mr. Ross
nor Mr.. Chick could have enforced
payment for this work against the town
ship.
| Whenever public officer in his Off
cial capacity, lets u contract, the person
taking such contract must take no
tice, at his peril, of the extent of the
autLority of the officer with whom he
contracts. A public officer can only
bind his principal to the extent of the
authority conferred by law.
Now, the question Is, were these or
aers drawn either wilfllly or corruptly
within the meaning of the statute ol
1876.
This statute provides that any officer
who shall wiifully or corruptiy draw
or is,iie any warrant, order or certifi'
cate for the payment OF money In cx'
cess of the amount authorized by law
or for purpose not authorized by law
shall be decmcd guilty ola mi'dencan'
or.
The orders I'm question here were is
sued some little time after this law took
effect, and the respondent, especially
In his official character anil conduct, /.
kconclusively presumed to know wha'
the law Is.
You will observe that this statute
, uses the words wilfully or corruptly
and it is necessary for me to say few
words in regard to them. The inform
alton charges that tile issuing of thcs,
| orders WAS wilfully and corruptly done
1t Is not necessary, under this inform
alton, to show that this Issuing Of or
(lcrs was both wilful and corrupt.
it was either wilful or corrupt it will
be sufficient.
In regard to the word wilful, as use6
in this statute, it means Purposely, in
, tentionally, knowingly. The stject O
! this statute Is to provide for the saf'
!, Keeping of public moneys, and to pre-
vent tile issuing of orders for u purpos,
not authorized !,y law.
An officer vino issues an order mus
take notice, ut his peril, Of the law
and mean by the words purPosely
, Intentionally and knowingly, I'm ex
= PLANTATION of the word wilfully, tha
4 these words must be held to apply t
l the act Of issuing the order, ani not Il
/, the respondents knowledge Of the law
. The word corruptly has diifereil
signification or meaning. IL Is IA littl
: difficult 10 give an exact definition q
l the meaning Of sucl, II word; but u
q applicable to the evidence of this ease
it may be held to mean any act in
public capacity in had faith, withou
x the exercise of an honest Judgment o
4 discretion in his official acts, and In vi
\ olation of a public trust, without du
!, regard for the welfare Of the peopl
whom lie represents.
:, In considering whether these order
G we've drawn or issued corruptiy, yO
: will consider whether OF not in lettin
these jobs there was al evident intell
OH the part of the respondent To cvad
v the statute i'm reference to advcrtisii
tI,e work; the letting I'm alternate sec
tions of 40 rods. You will consider Tn
: persons to whom the work was Lei
= that Is, the fact that they were sons
|. in-law of the respondent.
ri You will also, consider whether q
q net this work was let for price large
/ ly I'm excess Of its true value. And al
!, so. the fact that Mr.. Taylor had pul
!. cIinsed the pine I'm the line OF the wor
!, and included this In tile job.
n All these surrounding circumstance
!: may he taken into consideration by yo'
!. hi passing upon the question or corruI
n intent In Issuing these srdcrs.
= have said before that II Is not net
a essary I'm this cause tv prove that thes
!, orders were issued wilfully and col
4 ruptIy. II they were issued wilfull,
y within the meaning Of that word as
!. have before explained, lie IL guilty .
charged in the Information. III the o
q ders were issued corruptly,- within III
! meaning of this word M / have o.
> plnined, he IL guilty ~ charged.
!. Upon the question ~ to wheth'
4 these orders were draws wilfuliy an
4 for = purpose not authorized by lav
n there Is but little dispute as to the fact
Il The issuing of the orders Ii not denis
:. by Mr.. Taylor. He admits II. III
lg ti,ey were issued for this work, hay
le already told you. That this work WI
10 not authorized by law. But II
Ms claimed that the law upon which tn
l. prosecution Is based did not take enc
Id until after the job was let; and cons
rs quently, that this law does not app
re to this case. This n erroneous. Il
t. letting of this job was unlawful. III
as issuing Of the orders In satisfaction
er this work was unlawful, and the Ia
ne Of 1875 applies to this case, becau
MT there IL no dispute but that the orde
"a ..r.~< dr, xx,n affer tais Inv took effel