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

directly or ipdirecty, IN any con.
tract made BY the court or other per.
son In behalf Of the county, for anv
purpose. Tine resolution of The
cour. appointing plaintiff superin-
endent OF county affair." and III, 40.
ceptance of such position cohstihiad
contract, aud was void be,.a,,se
prohibited by the stattte. IL efI;sc,
also II carried oit. would In. or
might be, 10 increase his comrensa.
llon as an officer, and it was there
lore void as against public policy
independently OF the statute. Gil
man and COwdrey vs.. ID. V. r.
cited. ""U o''ses
Ii Is Probably true that the bust.
NESS OF the county Is such as 10 re-
qulre attention between the regular
sessions OF the County Court nDd
we think enteE Section 1911 Vol I
Conar' Laws, the court may appoint
one or more Of its members as a com.
'dlttee 10 have supervision of such
business during the Interval he
tween the sessions OF the Court and
% report at It's REGULAR Sessions. and
That such Uc~mittee would lie en-
uleI % compensation for such ser
vices al a rate not exceeding 81 per
day Tor the time actually and ne
cessarily employed, together with
mileage. But the county court,
being a court Of special and limited |
jurisdiction and powers, canno,
create an office and appoint one Of 4
It's members TO Til II at a fixed /
salary nor can il bind the
county 10y a resolution or con.
tract to pay one OF its members A
hNed yearly sum for performing du-
Ties which, as is alleged in this case.
are devOlved by Law upon such
court. III the lahors Of the court
can lie parcelled out in this manner,
and fixed and extra compensation
allowed therefor, IL can create an
oilice or appointment for each OF
ITS members and without limit as
10 the salary allowed and thereby
increase the compensation of it,
members at their pleasure.
Under the arrangement between
plaintiff and the county court he
would be entitled 20 draw from the
county treasury rs SUPERINTENDENT
nearly - 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 To-
sition- During the sessions of the !
county court he would also be en-
Titled TO 81 per day as a member Of
such court, andwhile engaged in his
iuties as probate Judge he would be
untitled to the fees provided by law
or those duties, and yet, uOtwith-
the performance Of his ds-
les as probate judge and member Of
he county court would, while so Ell.
aged prevent the performance of
lis duties as superintendent, his !
alary as superintendent would | d
without interruption. The \
.lleged fact that such has been the
ormer practice Of the county court ,
Oes not add strength TO the plain ,
IFS claim. We think the court /,
las no such power, and its exercise 7
you'd lead to great abuses. The :
Of plaintiff as a social ii
q superintendent Of county affairs,
{ a fixed salary, was without au- :
hOrity and void, and created no liza /,
ility against the county for such
ilaTy. D
The application for writ OF man \
ate is therefore denied. We con !
ur: &. :. Zane, II. p. Henderson.
Judge Blackburn filed an opinion
in the main decision. ,
at holding that the probate judge =
lOuld have been paid per diem Tor | I,
is services outside Of his strict du- 4
Is as probate judge.