The record-union., 1891-11-06
TOO MUCH FOR THEM.
The Supervisors Try to Solve a Legal
Conundrum.
After Long and Desperate struggle
They Conclude to Refer 1t to the
County's Legal Adviser.

In very deep water yesterday afternoon.
Ihey were confronted by number of Ie-
gal technicalities, with which they
wrestled the entire afternoon, and then
threw up the sponge, leaving the District
Attorney to study the points at issue and
advise them what to do
1t seems that something over year ago
the board contracted with the American
Bridge Company of San Francisco to con-
struct an iron water tank at the County
Hospital, and the work was done by va
rious sub-contractors in this city. In the
meantime the bridge company failed. the
largest creditor here being the lumber
hrm of Richards d Knox, to whom the
company assigned the sum due it from
the county, for the benefit of the other
creditors.
Some months after the company had as
signed its President indorsed as correct
the demands of the various sub-contract-
ors and creditors in this city, and they
We're presented and severally allowed by
the Board of Supervisors.
County Auditor Johnson then received
letter from =. &. benson, one of the at
torneys interested IN the company's af-
fairs, cautloning him against paying
these claims to anyone other than the as
signees, and he refused to draw warrants
III favor of the several claimants.
The matter had been before the Super
ylsors some time ago, and was set for
hearing at the present session. j. b. De-
vine, counsel for Richards IL Knox, was
present yesterday afternoon and submit
ted a communication sighed by the vari-
Gus claimants, except the widow of H. q.
HAYS twhose claim amounts to some S400),
consenting to the resembling by the board
Hon
and requesting that it be done. The pur-
pose was to have the county settle with
the assignees and the latter with the cred
itors
When the communication referred to
had been read, Henry Starr, Mrs. Hays
attorney, gave notice that he had filed a
mechanics lien against the money due
the bridge company, and proposed that
the county should settle with his client.
supervisor Bates moved that the board
resclnd It's former action, and the motion
was seconded by Supervisor Jenkins.
Mr.. Starr made a statement in which
he held that the lien was valid one. The
asslgnees had offered TO pay Mrs. Hays
claim if she would give an indemnifyfng
bond to protect them in case the San
Francisco court, wherein the bridge COM
pany's insolvency proceedings are pend
ing, should require them to pay the
money into court. Mrs. Hays is execu-
triX of her husbands estate, he said, and
cannot give such bond without permis-
sion OF the Superior Court.
Supervisor Bates said that the money
was assigned to Richards d Knox for the
purpose of paying such claims as that of
Mrs. Hays. The tanks are not worth a
d-n, but he wanted all innocent par
ties to get their money, Mrs. Hays among
the number.
Chairman Greer asked j. B. Devine.
counsel for Richards & Knox. if the lat
ter would pay Mrs. Hays claim in full if
the money should be paid to them.
Mr.. Devine said he could only promise
that the creditors would be paid pro rata
on their claims out of the bridge COM
pany's money. All the creditors except
Mrs. Hays had consented to this PROPOSE
ton.
Chairman Greer explained the situa-
ton. The board had allowed the indi-
vidual claims, but the Auditor had de-
clined to draw warrants therefor because
someone had notified him of possible
contest.
Mr.. Devine asked the board to allow
Richards d Knox's claim in full, and to
let them and Mrs. Hays settle their differ
ences between themselves. Mrs Hays
had no claim against the county-only
against The bridge company, while mis-
clients claim is legal and valid one for
the whole sum due.
Deputy District Attorney Buckley was
called In and the situation was explained
TO him by Chairman Greer.
Supervisor Bates said that the matter
had once been referred to the District At
torney, who had instructed the Auditor
TO pay the claims, and he wanted the
Auditor called in to explain why he had
not paid them. Word was received that
Auditor johnson was not in.
Mr.. Buckley said the Supreme Court
had decided that an Auditor cannot re-
fuse to pay demand audited and allowed
by the Board of Supervisors.
To a question by Judge Devine, Mr.
Buckley said it was the duty of the board
to pay the demand of the assignees, Rich
ards d Knox, for the full amount due
Sacramento creditors (some 81. 500, and
let them pay all the minor claims.
supervisor Bates said he wanted to
know whether the Auditor or Super
visors were running this thing, and pro-
posed to find out.
Mr.. Devine demanded immediate
action by the board on the claim of his
clients for the full amount. They had
waited long enough.
supervisor Jenkins here withdrew his
second TO Mr.. Bates motion to rescind
the former action of the board.
BY this time Auditor Johnson had az
rived, and was asked his reason for hay-
ing refused to audit the several demands,
Mr.. Johnson said the parties were sub
V.
he had been advised that if he paid the
claims the company, or its assignees,
might come upon him for the full
amount. The assignment filed with him
covered the full amount, and he proposed
to protect the county,
Mr.. Starr claimed that Richards S Knox
had waived their rights under the as
slgnment by at one time consenting to
have the demands in the names of the
several sub-contractorS paid by the
county direct.
Mr.. Buckley, in response to question,
said that perhaps the safer course for the
board to pursue would be to deal direct
with the legal assignees.
Auditor johnson said the individual
bills were ind6rsed as correct by the
President of the bridge company months
solvency, when he had no authority TO
act for the company, the court having
appointed legal assignees to settle its af-
fairs.
The alleged notice of assignment was
produced, and several of the Supervisors
gave it as their opinion that it was only a
private letter and had no legal force.
Auditor Johnson, however, informed
the board that they had no right to allow
the claims of any one except the legal
,assignees, and he would refuse to draw
warrants in favor of any one else, unless
legally advised to the contrary.
After some further discussion it was
decided to take action on the matter. one
way or the other, at to-day's session. the
meantime to inquire fully into the points
at issue and advise the board what course
TO pursue.
PERHAPS NOT so BAD.
City Auditor Youney.S CONSERVATION, Of