The Russellville Democrat. [volume] (Russellville, Ark.) 1875-1898, 1885-03-05
JUDGE LINzEY SPEAKS.
And Gives the True Inwardness
of the Bond Matter.
Correspondence OF the Democrat.

And Gives the True Inwardness
of the Bond Matter.
Correspondence OF the Democrat.
As | have been specially request
ell to furnish you statement in full
of the facts and particulars concern
ing the assessor and his bond, which
has been disapproved by the county
court, ! will give you statement
In full that the public may know the
facts as they are.
The bond (if it is entitled to that
name) was filed in the clerks office
on the 14th day of Nov. 1884, eleven
DAYS after | was sworn In, the county
court was not in session, nor did not
convene till the lst Monday in Jan
uary, 1885, at which time the bond
came before me for approval, up to
this time | was of the opinion that
Mr. Austin had previously present
ed his bond TO Judge Bradley, who
had fixed the amount and approved
the same. On examination of the
bond found it entirely blank, that
is, stating no amount. l ordered the
clerk 70 return the bond to MIR. Aus
tin, with instructions to insert $3,-
600, and supply the necessary affida-
Wits. The clerk did this, and the
bond was returned filed in as order
ed, but without sufficient affidayits.
then notified Mr.. Austin personally
to send up the additional affidavits,
and in the meantime to be sure that
would be justified in approving the
bond, / wrote to the Attorney Gen
eral, stating the facts and asking his
opinion in the case, which Is quite
lengthy, but in language bearing d.
rectly upon the point in question as
follows to-wit: Consequently / must
entertain the opinion that the reve-
nue. act of 1888, did not repeal the
act of March LIST 1875, or alter or
amend it except to require the as
sessers bond to be approved by the
County Judge, and not by the Cir
cult Judge, subject to confirmation
or rejection by the circuit court. The
assessor should have had his bond
approved by the County Judge with
in fifteen days after the receipt of his
mission, subject TO confirmation
or rejection by the circuit court,
which provisional approval by the
County Judge in vacation, in the
language of the supreme court in the
case of OLIVER VS.. Martin, supra 'au-
thorizes the officer to proceed IN his
duties until the bond be declared in
sufficient, and the officer fails to file
a sufficient bond in the time pre-
scrlbed.'
The failure to enter into bond re-
uuired by Section 81 of Revenue act
Of 1888, within fifteen days after re
ce,pt of his commission, rendered
the assessors Office Of your county
vacant, unless within fifteen days
after its rejection a sufficient bond
had been filed. The County Judge
could not grant longer time than the
law authorized. See Falconer vs..
Shores 81 Ark. 1856; McCabe exparte
33 Ark. 396; Haynes VS. Dickinson
80 Ark. 776; Aston VS.. Falconer AZ
| ATh. LII EiSJ No' EaiN0uSi T. "a ~
1l7.' In all of these cases, the act
of March 1875, is construed by the
supreme court, and the rule of con
struction may be applied as well to
the assessor as to the collector. |
am therefore clearly Of the opinion
that the office of assessor Of your
county is vacant, and that the clerk
of your county should notify the
Governor of that fact, to the end that
an election may be held therein to
fill the vacancy"
Very respectfully,
DAN w. JONES,
Atty General.
Relying upon the above opinion
as a correct construction of the law,
| felt it my duty to disapprove the
assessors bond, which l did, and |
notified him of the fact. These are
the full facts and particulars in the
premises, which submit to the pub
lie as matter Of general informa-
ton. Yours truly,
j. S. LINZEY,