The Cheyenne daily leader. [volume] (Cheyenne, Wyo.) 1870-1884, 1880-09-11

lncIc - my ificuu, JACK DuusDy,
h-e-e-e can give an opinion rs Is an
opinion"
We had always thought that the onus
Of proof. ia a court Of justice, was with
the party bringing the case, and that
the defendant, having denied the claim,
was under no legal necessity Of moving
further until the opponent had made q
priBia Jaeie case. Indeed, we thought,
innocertly enough, that II there wa
any rigidity 10 be attached to this rule
II was In such cases as where the de-
PENDANT was sued in 4 trust capacity,
such IS n board commissioners, as It
cannot pay out the money Of the people
except upon such proof of n right TO re-
ceive II and Of legal authority to pay 1t.
II seems, however, judging by the
opinion OF Judge Blair, In Albany
county, in a case where the sheriff sued
the board, that the rule Is reversed,
where the peoples money is to be paid
out. That in such a case the board
must prove the people are not bound to
pay IL or have judgment against 1t.
In that case the sheriff sued for
salary. under the repealed special act
for Albany county OF 1877. The opinion
leads us to believe the defendant inter-
posed the general fee bill Of 1879,
which being printed in the session laws
OF that year and certified to by the
secretary Of the territory the law makes
prima facie proof. Such being the Ease
the defendant, to prove his case, had TO
show that such was not the law. Evil
dence WIS produced tending to show
that n general Zee bill was In fact
passed, was signed by the proper officers
and approved by the governor, which
therefore became the law which gov
erned the fees Of all the officers therein
named, including the sheriffs, but that
the bill which became n law was lost or
stolen, (no attempt was made 70 prove
that 1t was stolen or taken by the de-
feDdant.l That the secretary and chief
officers Of the two branches Of the legis-
lature. from the records within their
control, produced a copy Of the stolen
bill which was printed rs a law and
certified to. 1t vas developed that the
copy differed In some respects from the
original, but not in any respect with re-
ference to the fees Of the sheriff. These
differences, IL proven, Of course sup
piled the defects in the bill they related
to. There was also some proof tend
ing to show that there were other de-
fects that could not be remedied, still
not defects relating to the fees Of the
plaintiff, except In such instances where
defects were shown which were caused
by amendments TO the bill as reported
by the committee. which introduced it. 1t
seems to have been admitted that this
bill, rs 1t appears us n statute. was
passed and approved rs introduced.
This leaves the repeating clause intact.
This clause is rs follows:
Section 40. That an act entitled an
act regulating the fees OF officers, ap-
proved December 10, 1860, and all acts
amendatory thereof and supplemental
thereto, be and the same are hereby re-
pealed.
So no matter what other sections were
proven or not proven on the trial, the
mind OF the legislature, rs expressed In
the bill, was preserved 50 far us prior
acts were concerned. So that unless
the plaintiff could get pay for his SER
vices by virtue of the act Of 1879, there
was no authority by which he could get
any pay Mt all, for the act he relied on
was repealed. The third paragraph Of
the opinion reasonably leads a reader
to Lsuppose that Judgment would be
given for the defendant, for 1t says:
An act to establish and regulate the
fees and compensation Of officers, and
for other purposes, was passed by said
1.-THE sixth) legislative assembly, re-
ceived the approval Of the governor Of
the territory and became q law.
II it became n law, clearly 1t was the
authority by which such officers MS were
described In It could 10 paid, and IL all
previous laws relating to the same sub
ject were repealed, the sole authority
for their payment, whether the con-
tents Of the bill could be proved or not.
The opinion admits that II the contents
Of the bill could be proven, no matter
how, 50 that the proof would be salts
factory the will Of the legislature, rs
expressed In council file No. IS, could
be cfectuated. But the opinion goes
on TO recite that some parts OF the bill,
rs published In the session laws, have
been proven as correct. and therefore
the whole act, including those parts
which were proved rs correct, Is null
and void, and therefore Judgment Is
given for the plaintiff by virtue Of an
act which stands proven rs repealed.
IL this be law, then n drop Of ink rend-
ering obscureoro biitersting a controlling
word in q single section could repeal an
law.
The proposition Is rs astounding us It
Is novel. That the stealing Of q paper
upon which n law Is written not only
repeats tho law but invests q court with
the legislative power Of revlving q re-