The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-12-25
THE SALARY CASES.
PeremptorY Mandamuses to
Auditor Clayton
IN TIE SUITS FOR SALARIES
MustIssue the Warrants to Messrs.
Pratt, Roberts and Williams
An Appeal Probable.

Just before his departure for the
coast, on Saturday evening, Judge
SANFORD filed his decisions in the cases
oil L. Williams VS.. Nephi w. Clayton,
Bolivar Roberts VS.. Nephi W. Clayton,
and Arthur Pratt VS.. Nephi w. Clay
ton, which were argued before him IN
October last. During the session OF the
Legislature that body appropriated
$1,000 as compensation for the Terri
torial Superintendent of District
Schools for the years 1886 and 1887. The
plaintiff was appointed Superintendent
o: District Schools by Ex-Governor
Murray in 1886, and afterwards, in
1887, under 'he provisions Of the
Tucker Edmunds law, was made
Commissioner of the District
Schools of the Territory. Mr..
Williams made application for
the entire amount appropriated,
claiming that he was entitled to tae
salary tor 1886 by virtue of his appoint
ment by the lamented Murray, and
that for 1887 because OF his appointment
by the Supreme Court. The auditor,
however. did not see eye to eye with Mr..
Williams in this matter, and declined to
issue the warrant for the 1886 salary,
because, as he alleged, Mr.. Williams
had not performed the duties of the Of
fee, which was filed by L. John Nuttall,
who had been elected by the people to
that position, The refusal Of the auditor
toissue the warrant resulted IN the is
suance of q writ of mandamrs s, which
ordered the defen 1ant to s - the war
rant or else show CaITo why he should
not. The case val argued and
submitted. as " also those of Arthur
Pratt VS.. Nephi w. Clayton and Boil
var Roberts va. Nephi w. Clayton. The
former asked that the defendant be COM
PEELED to issue to him a warrant for the
salary of the auditor of public accounts,
for the ye ars 1886 and 1888 600, and
the latter made the same request re-
garding the salary of the Territorial
Treasurer for the same perlod-Sl, 800.
The decisions are given in full below
PRATT VS.. CLAYTON.
This proceeding is brought to compel
the defendant, de factO auditor of pub
lie accounts for O tab Territory, to issu
his warrant in favor of the plaintiff.
By statute the public auditor shall ex-
anime and audit all public accounts
connected with the pecuDiary affairs OF
the Territory Comp. 18S, vol. l, page
25D. The claim of the plaintiff has
not been examined audited, though
plaintiff offered evidence showing
that he was the legally appointed
officer and entitled to the office,
and that his right thereto had been
determined by the Supreme Court
of the Territory in the case of the Peo-
pie vs.. Clayton Pacific Reporter 206).
In that case the court held that this
plaintiff, Pratt, was the auditor of pub
lie accounts, and that this defendant,
CLAYTON, was not. That decision, al
though appealed from, has not been
modified or reversed, and must be re-
garded as the law of this case.
Where there is on appeal new trial
of the issues before tried, and the same
issues are tried On the review, it has
been held that the prior judgment does
not conclude the rights OF the parties.
On the appeal taken in the case re-
ferred to supra there has not been and
cannot be a new trial of the issues.
The appeal does not, therefore, vacate
the.iudgment rendered below (Bank
VS.. Wheeler, e Com. 346). The
Judgment roll in the case Of the People
VS.. Clayton was properly rec6iVed in
evidence. $50 n. Y. 1897 It may,
therefore, be regarded as well settled
that the plaintiffs right to the office
has bsen fully determined, and that
adjudication ia conclusive until reversed
or set aside in some proceeding lnsti-
tuted for that purpose.
The objection that the plaintiff has
cnrvinpq PoOUirn0 Of
him by law to be performed as auditor
comes with bad grace from the person
who has prevented the rendition of
such service, and is wholly untenable.
That is a matter of which the defend
ant NAV not avail himself.
It is further argued that the plant
ifs claim should not be audited by the
defendant. because he has already aud
tied his own claims for services as
auditor, and that the warrant therefor.
so issued to himself, has been paid by
the treasurer OF the Territory.
The fact that he has audited his own
demand is no reason why be should not
examine and audit the claim OF the
auditor, who has been declared to be
the legal incumbent of the Office. The
quo 1OdTrentO judgment was notice to
him and that Judgment Of custer was
rendered long prior to the date OF the
audit of his own claim.
The Territorial Treasurer, when the
demand of the plaintiff shall have been
audited and presented to him for
payment, may raise such dafenses
and objections as he may think proper.
The drawing of the warrant, the ex-
amining of the claim of the plaintiff
and its audits are acts purely minis
terial and should be performed by the
defendant.
a peremptory writ of mandamus may
issue out of and under the seal of this
court, directing the defendant forth
with to proceed to examine and audit
the demand of the plaintiff.
WILLIAMS VS.. CLAYTON.