Arizona silver belt., 1889-05-25

council, subject 10 approval by the next council.
 Foster claims this office in his an swer:
 .l. By virtue of section 3050, which pTescribes that every officer shall dis chare the duties of his office, although his term has expired, until hls successor had qualified
 2. By hls second appointment
 On the 22d of March he took a com mission, thus taking new appoint ment and gave new bond, and thus sprrendering his first commission. In the case of the United States vS. Kirk patrick, 9 Wheaton, 73i, the Supreme Court held the taking of the second appointment was a virtual superee- ding and surrender of the first com. mission.' He was appointed anew on the 22d day of March to this office, then having different term from what it had under the appointment to fill the vacancy.
 must hold that the appointment of Smith on the Sth of April was valid The appointment of another to the office provides the removal or displace- ment of the incumbent, Field vs. The people, ? Seammon GID l5l and ex parse Hennen, Blake vs U. $. l03. |. s. 227, and cases there cited. Judg- msnt is therefore rendered for plain tiff
 Congress prescribes that the session oflegislat,ve assemblies Of the several Territories shall be limited to sixty days. The Revised Code ot the Terri tory of Arizona, wnicl went into effect uly 1st, 1887 provides: That the leg ,latise assembly shall meet at the capital of the Territory on the third Monday in January, 1889, and every two years thereafter, and that its ses- sions shall be limited to sixty days. Hence it is that tine court also inieren- sially decided that all acts passed after the legal lifo of the session are necss- sarily void, which declsien stultites the act approprialing money for the expense incidental to Territorial gov ernmen,. Consequently, all pay;4ents erritorial officers must be deferred, st until 'he biennial session of
 e IS no adjust-
 ore that time as
 amicable aa-
 at lssne un-
 ms the consent
 .ent of Congress to pro- an extra session of the legisla. 
 he Auditer only is authorized to ,ck upon the treasury Tn cases not Ierwise provided for It must be expressed in the body of the warrant drawn. the palticular fund appro- prialed by law, ont of winch the same is to be paid, and the warrant must be cpuntersigned by the Governor or Sec retary. It especially enacted that no warrant shall be drawn by the Auditor, or paid by the Treasurer, unless the money has been previously appropriated by law. However, in cases where the law recognizes a claim 10. money against the Territory, but ne appropriation shall have been made by law to pay the same, the Auditor shall audit and adjust the account, if presented to hi~ the claim ant acG 1t thereof, under hL .manded and shall re the leg 55latlve asseL Auditor shall issue any warrant upon the treasury, not authorized by law, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and ,p5n conviction thereof shall be fined m a sum eqqal to five times the amount of such warrant, and impris- oned for any time not exceeding two years.
 The Treasurer is required to keep separate accounts of the different funds, the balance ef cash on hand in the Treasury 10 the credit of each fund, as set apart by law
 When the title of the incumbent of s.ny ,o@ this Territory is contes-
 instituted in any
 pose, no warrant
 aid for any part of
 npensation except in
 n cases, after decree
 { the parties entitled |
 anappeal being taken
 z, the successful party 1
 .llng a bond, receive his
 lending the final adjudication contest, subject to it's repay f n ease the appellate court fails |
 nisi prius judgnsnt.
 within the class v cases Foster is
 asation for the
 e since the