Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1879-07-17
A CASE CELEBRE.
Two Important Suits in the District
Court,
IN WHICH MeSSRS. HORN AND SADlfR
TACKLE THE COMMISSIONERS.
A LIVELY DEBATE AND AN INTER
ESTING EPISODE.


John Horn, Road Supervisor, who claimed
that the Board Of County Commissioner
had exceeded the powers conferred upon
them by law, and that they had uulawfully
delegated to Mr. J. S. Wilton authority
that belonged to himself exclusively by
virtue Of his election to Office. The
Board, it seems, authorized Mr.. Wilton
to construct bridges over the ditch at Clark
and Bateman streets Immediately after the
fire, and this work Mr.. Horn claimed
should have been done by himself. and SO
entered snit to lave the order OF the Board
SGT aside, and to have the money paid for
the work refunded. Hon. Thomas Wren
and George w. Baker. Esq, appeared for
the plaintiff, and Mr.. Merrill for the de-
PENDANTS. In summing up the case, Judge
Rivcs said that certain extraordinary cir
cumstances must be taken into consilera-
ton, and that it was one in which the law
OF common sense would, in a measure, Of
necessity be consulted. The bridges hay-
ing been destroyed By fire, it was abso-
lutely necessary to have them rebuilt at
the earliest practical moment, aud that the
1888" ht@t tAN ohDuAl
have been advertised for 80 days could not
under the circumstances have been COM
piled with, except at great Inconvenience
TO the community. The work having been
paid for, the money could not now be re
covered, but SO much Of the order Of the
Board az specified that Mr.. Whitton should
perform such other WORK as they should
direct was ordered ~rescinded, and tho de-
PENDANTS ordered to pay costs. Ii was a
workable bred Scott settlement, in which
the North walked of with the law. and the
South gobbled the darhey.
II is n Poor RuIe. Etc.
There are two sides to every story, and
the Commissioners vigorously insist that
they acted in the beat interests Of the peo-
pie. Previous to the fire, they say, a
bridge was needed in the upper part Of
town, aud Mr.. Horn was anxious for the
job. The Commissioner then stated that
II would be necessary to advertise for pro-
posa!s, but that Mr.. Horn aud other
taxpayers assured them that no objections
would be made, and upon that assurance
allowed Mr.. Horn to proceed with the
work. Now, they claim, the principal
point he brings against them ia the very
ons which he was then willing to fnrego,
when it rodounde9 to hi. own interests.
II this Is the case it only proves that the
Board ought not to be caught mapping.
Tsse Sourt-pEonse Case.
Tho next case on the docket was that OF
Sadler vs.. tho County Commissioners
Public expectation had been centered on
this case, and as a consequence the Court
room was we'll filed. II vas a hearing OF
y writ Of cortorsTi, issned at the instance
Of Sadler and served upon the Board. call.
ing upon them to show II they had not ex-
eeeael the powers given them by our
statutes, in making certain changes in the
new Courthouse. and in appropriating
money to pay for such alterations. From
prccedents heretofore established in the
State il was presumed by many that the
Commissioners NoHia he sustained in their
position, but the re-uIt only proves the
uDsfableiiess Of all that il human gener-
ally. and shows that when Sadl,r gels his
Teatonic blood warmed mp the devils 10
pay on the Wabash and all along the line.
Hon. =. w. Cole.
Judge Cole appeared for the respondents,
and opened the argument. He proposed,
he said, to argue the case upon it's merits,
and intended to show upon what a writ Of
certorari was founded ia accordance with
the practice laid down in this State.
The object of the writ. he said. was sim
ply to sliow whether tho body upon whom
it had been served had exceeded their au-
thority, and he intended TO prove that the
Board was empowered by the Statutes to
issue the orders referred to by ~relator.
The facts in the affidavit he admitted the
conclusions he denied. The only question
A. - -..a. Z -. ~ IL. III |
to make changes in the contract, and this
line he followed through his entire argu-
ment. The Board, lac claimed. under the
laws giving such bodies in this State
power. were empowered to authorize the
erection OF public buildings, and he quoted
that section Of the law in which they are
authorized to make contracts not exceed
ing $500 without inviting proposals, aud
claimed that this section the Board
was authorized to make such changes and
issue such orders as the relator objected to
in his affidavit, and cited many similar
cases in other States 10 sustain his position.
He ridiculed the idea Of advertising for
proposals for every minor change that il
might be necessary to make in the new
building. All contracts could be changed
By consent Of both parties, and there never
had been a public building erected in
"hAtt fh1 HfAfc aha iiltc itl |
been strictly followed. Anybody who had
the power to make a contract certainly had
the power to change 1t. The Judge was
followed by
Hon. Thomas " rem
For the ~relator. Mr.. Wren's line was that
the Board could not deviate from the con-
tract without advertising for new pro-
posals, as the law provides. If they have
tho power to do otherwise, what is |
there to prevent q bargain between
Commiss oncrs and contractors? The |
county would be absolutely at their
mercy. He disclaimed any reflections upon
the Board, but wanted to show that our
law makers could not have been so eyre
giously stupid as to leave open such an
avenue for fraud. All buildings, he pro- I
cceded to say, were built from plans and
specifications. These were drawn by som
petent architects, and well considered be-
fore being acted upon, and the estimates
made ere the bids were put in, so that if
any contractor makes an honest bid he has
nothing to lose should there be no change
in the contract. There is nothing in the
Statutes of Nevada that authorizes the
Board, even by implication, to make any
change in any contract, and they should
not be allowed to do indirectly that which
they were not authorized To do directly.
II the Board conld make additional con-
tracts with Mr.. Boungard, why the neces-
sity of advertising for proposals at all?
Why not in the beginning authorize him
to construct ten feet Of foundation for
5000, and then ten feet more, and SO on
until completed? Such a course would be
no more unlawful than the orders they
have issued.
George w. Baker, Esq.
Then took the floor for ~relator. He