Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-07-12

directly or indirect,y, IN any con
tract made By the court or other ner,
son In behalf of the county. for any
purpose. the resolution of tn
cour. appointing plaintiff suDerin.
ehdent OF county affairs and nj, ac.
ceptaDce OF such position constituted
a contract, aud was voM because
prohibited by the stattte. .Its effect
also. II carried oit. would br- or
might be, 10 increase his comrensa-
tloh as an officer, and it was there
lore void as against public policy
independently OF the statute. Gil
man and COwdrey VS.. ID. Y. r.
cited. anu lasts
1t is probably true that the bust.
hess oil the county is such as 10 re-
quire attention between the regular
sessions OF the County Court and
we mink en9oE Section 1871. VoI-J
Oonin Laws, the court may appojnt
one or more OF its members as a com.
hittee 70 have supervision of such
BUSINESS during the Interval he
tween the sessions OF the Court and
% ruliOt at its Regular SESSIONS AMI
that such Ucy~mlttee would L. en-
uueI % compensation for such ser
wees at rate not exceeding 81 per
day Tor the time actually and ne
cessarily employed, together with
mileage. But the county court
oelng court Of special and limited
jurisdiction and powers, canno;
create an office aud appoint one Of |
It's members to fiji il at a fixed /
salary nor can il bind the
county 10y a resolution or con.
tract to pay one OF its members a |
liked yearly sum for performing du-
Ties which, as is alleged in this case.
are devolved by Law upon such
court. II the lahors of the court
can lie parcelled out in this manner,
and fixed and extra COMPENSATION /
allowed therefor, il can create an
Office or appointment for each Of
It's members and without limit as
70 the salary allowed and thereby
Increase the compensation of it, |
members Mt their pleasure.
Under the arrangement between
plaintiff and the county court he
would be entitled TO draw from the
county treasury as superintendent.
nearly 81 per day for every day in
the year, including Sundays and le-
gal holidays, when he could per
form none OF the duties Of his 10
sitiOn. During the sessions of the
county court he would also be en-
titled 10 81 per day as q member Of
such court, andwhile engaged in his
duties as probate judge he would he
entitled to the fees provided by law
for those duties, and yet, nOtwith-
standing the performance Of his d.
lies as probate judge and member o;
The county court would, while so en-
gagged prevent the performance Of
his duties rs superintendent, his
'alary as superintendent would ,
continue without interruption. The !
alleged fact that such has been the
ormer practice Of the county court ! ,
ioes not add strength 20 the plain .
ifi's claim. We think the court | /,
has no such power, and its exercise /
would lead to great abuses. The !
of plaintiff as a social \
d superintendent Of county affairs,
t fixed salary, was without au- :
hority and void and created no liza
'ility against the county for such
alary.
The application for writ Of man \
late Is therefore denied. We con :
ar: &. :. Zane, II. =. Henderson.
Judge Blackburn filed an opinion
in the main decision.
ut holding that the probate judge
hOuld have been paid per diem for
is services outside OF his strict du- i
les Is probate judge.