The record-union., 1891-02-11
MAY GO INTO CAHOOTS.
Interesting Decision by the Supreme
Court on Advertising Rates.
Publishers Can Fix Their Own Rates.
and the County Must Advertise
Another Decision.

an important point in relation to county
advertising rates.
The point involved is discovered in the
case of Winn VS.. Shaw. The latter is the
Auditor of San Benito County, and he ap-
pealed to the Supreme Court from a judg
ment of the Superior Court of the county,
which enjoined him from drawing war
rant in favor of man named Hodges,
who sold piece of property to the
county.
The lower court found that the Super
visors in purchasing the property had di-
rected that the notice of their intention
be published as required by law. There
were two newspapers Of general circula-
tion in San Benito county at the time, but
the notice was not published as directed.
The Supervisors went ahead and pur-
chased the property, and directed Au-
dltor Shaw to draw his warrant upon the
County Treasurer for the sum due Hod-
ges.
BoYCoTTED THE COUNTY.
In January, $780,. the Supervisors of
San Benito County fixed the price of all
county advertising for the ensuing year
at Is cents per square for the first inser-
ton and 25 cents for each subsequent in
sertion.
ance with the views of the proprietors of
the two newspapers of the county, one of
whom was Winn, the plaintiff in this case.
Winn and the other newspaper man had
conference, and they entered into an
agreement, adopting uniform schedule
OF prices to be charged by them for adj
yertising, and stipulating that the same
"should extend to all county work, and
where possible said county work shall be
divided as equally between the two
Offices as possible, each receiving profit
proportionate to the work DONE" By
the terms of this agreement the two
papers were to charge for county printing
81 80 per square for the first insertion
and IS cents for each subsequent inser-
ton.
The lower court found that neither of
the newspapers was willing to publish
the notice of the Supervisors intention to
purchase Hodges property for the price
fixed by the Supervisors. but they We're
at all times willing and able to publish it
at the rate fixed by their agreement The
court issued the injunction against the
Auditor.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
The Supreme Court, in reviewing the
case, quotes Section % of the County Gov
ernment Act, which provides that Boards
OF Supervisors have jurisdiction to pur-
chase property for the use of the county,
but they must advertise their intention,
Nilll utSClIDllOil VI lIlC properly, lne
price to be paid, fixing the time for CON
summating the purchase, for at least three
weeks in some newspaper of general cir
culation published in the county; or if
none be published in the county, then by
posting such notice, etc.
This provision SAYS the Supreme
Court, cannot be construed as simply
directory, but 1t operates as limitation
upon the power of the Supervisors to
make any purchase of real property, and
unless the publication is made as directed,
the board has no jurisdiction to act at all.
The manifest design of the law is that
notice shall be given to the taxpayers, so
that by remonstrance or petition they
may be able TO prevent it, or at least be
afforded an opportunity to be heard in
the matter; and we have no doubt that a
compliance with the statute in this reSpect
Is essential to the validity of any such
contract OF purchase. 1t is urged, how
ever, that to hold this provision of the
statute mandatory is to place it in the
POWER OF NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS
To enter into combinations which will. in
effect, deprive the Supervisors of any
voice in determining what shall be paid
by the county for such publications
and that county may be subjected to the
payment of eNorbtant charges, or else
cease to perform such governmental func-
tions as, in order to be legally exercised,
require published notice at some stage Of
the proceeding. This is an argument,
however, which could more properly he
addressed to the Legislature. The lam
guage OF the statute under consideration
Is plain, and the court must give effect to
II as 1t is written, and if the evils sug-
gested are likely to flow from this con-
struction the remedy must be by legisla-
tive action.
st is further urged" continues the
court, that the county, or plaintiff, will
not suffer any damage if the land of
Hodges is accepted and paid for. But
the question here is not whether the
county will profit or loose by the transac-
ton. If the law forbids * that
must be the end of the matter.
The question as to the validity of the
contract made between the proprietors of
the newspapers, is not involved in this
case. Judgment is affirmed.''
The decision is written by Justice De
Haven, all the others concurring,
ANOTHER DECISION.
An opinion was also rendered yester-
day in &c pdrte Clark on Hdbeas Corpus.
The petitioner is the mother of Charles
Henry Clark, minor, and the respon-
dents, who are husband and wife, claim
that has become their child by adoption.
They base their claim on an order made
in November 1888, by John f. Finn. one
of the Judges of the Superior Court of
San Francisco. Attached to the order
was written consent signed by James
p. Clark and Annie L. Clark, the parents
of the child, consenting that their son be
adopted by Jacob Reulein. Following
this was a written agreement and consent
signed by David, Reulein land and
Mrs. Kate Reulein in which the latter
consented that DAVID Reulein might
adopt the child, and in which he agreed
to adopt the boy and treat him thereafter
IN all respects as his own lawful child.
The order of the Judge recited that James
n 1n,.l- o,,1 To
Reulein and Katie Reulein, appeared
before him. bringing with them Charles
Henry Clark, aged 2 years and ii months:
that after questioning the several per-
sons he found jacob Reulein was de-
sirous of adopting the boy; that his wife
consented to such adoption, and that it
was for the best interests of the child that
the adoption should take place.. that the
parents having signed the necessary con-
sent, and jacob Reulein having exc
cuted the proper agreement, it was
therefore ordered that the boy should
thenceforth be regarded as the child of
Jacob" Reulein.
FEE NAMES MIXED.
In the habeas corpus proceeding before
the superior Court, the real mother of
the child, Mrs. Clark, alleges that,he is de-
tanned and restrained of his liberty by
John" ID. Reulein and Katie Rem
lem. The writ was addressed
ttiitt ali answer WIS DlGu
signed by ''John'' d. Reulein and Katie
Reulein, admitting that they hold the
custody OF the child and claiming the
right to do so under the order of the Su-
perior Court.
In rendering the opinion of the oues-
ton, the Supreme Court says: at will
be observed that the parents consented to
the adoption OF their child by ..Jacobv
Reuiein and that the agreement to adopt
IS signed by David Reulein. and the or
der of the court gives the child to jacob,