Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1891-06-20

$3.50 70
Less county warrant. 100 90
$50 70
And on said day and thereupon, the
then acting County Auditor Of
Alturas county did audit and
issue to said parties against
the treasury of said county, the fol-
lowing warrants to wit: To Charles
Akin, warrants numbers 1857 for the
sum Of Sl26; 1883 for the sum of
$2l7 So; TO Peter Weber, 1859 for
the sum Of 1894 80; TO G 3. Flor
once. 1872 for the sum OF 800 70,
1873 for the sum of $2O7.2O. 1883,
for the sum Of $50, and all thereof
were on said day presented to the
treasurer of said county for payment
not paid for want Of funds, and reg.
is.ered as in ordinay cases.
XIX.
That on May 18th, 1891, said
board, without any claim bei"g filed
therefor, allowed and ordered paid
defendant Stapl~ford the sum Of
$40, ostensibly tor discount on some
warrants, and said Auditor did audit
the same and issue to said Stapleford
warrant number 1878 for the sum
aforesaid.
Xxx.
That on the 14th day Of April,
1891, said members Of the board, then
acting as the Board of Commission.
ers for Alta county, did allow aud
order paid the claim of defendants
Weber & Sutherland, for the sum Of
S45, ostensibly for livery hire by said
Commissioners for public business,
and the then Auditor for Alta county.
dill audit and issue to said Weber &
Sutherland against the treasury Of
Altnras county, warrant number
4343 for the sum afores aid, which same
WAS on said Gay presented g thu
Treasurer of Alta county for ply.
ment, but not paid for want of funds,
and by him registered against Al,u-
tlras county mot Alta county,
That defendant Weber is the Weber
OF said firm of Weber & Sutherland.
and the said claim arose, il At all. be.
tween the fifth day of March ard the
eleventh day of April 1891, when and
during which time all Of said officials
acted for Alta county, aud not Altu.
ras county; and during which period,
before and after, said Weber WAS an
acting member OF said board as then
constituted, and DO liability attached
y Alturas county, though the claim
$ otherwise also illegal rs being con-
rary to law.
XXI.
That in the month Of January 1891,
laid board was onl actually engaged
n uanssctng county business, one
lay, IS appears on and after page u OF
The county records, i'll February but
live days, aud in March did but al>
low and order paid = manifestly ille-
gal claim. That during aud after
March 18th, SAID board acting for the
County Of Alta, WAS apparently en-
gagged during thirteen day.. nost of
which time they consumed in illegal
business, AID in April but one day to
appoint one justice of the peace.
during tho so>caIled April session,
aud during the month of April
thirteen DAYS. On May seventh 1891,
said board constituted itself = Board
of Commissioners OF Alturas county.
and during all OF the remainder of
said session did comparatively moth.
ing.
That from February 9th to March
l6tn, G. Is. Florence WAS absent from
and without Al,uras county, and did
nothing for it within law; and Charles
Akin on the 3lst day of March, was
and accepted excuse to serve for the
balance of January term.
That on April 18th, defendant
Florence was not acting and did not
again act until April %. 1891; that
with the longest stretch Of imagin.>
ton conceivable, said Commissioners,
even allowing the facts as they ap-
pear from their record, could not be
aud are not entitled to compensation