Arizona republican., 1891-01-29
THE SUPREME COURT.
Argument Presented in O'NeiII vs. the
 County of Yavapai.


 County of Yavapai.
 In the Supreme Court yesterday the further argument in the Curby case, on appeal from Graham County, was con tinued, with the information that the Court would inform counsel when it would be convenient to hear from them upon that question.
 The Court next took up the case of O'Neill (Sherifi) vs. lavapai County, on appeal by the county as appellant. Messrs. Herndon X Hawkins appeared for appellant and Messrs. Baldwin x Johnson for appellee.
 Mir. HerndOn consumed the morning session with his opening argument. His statement of the case, in effect, was as follows: The cause was originally begun in Gavapai County by the Sherltt of that county, for fees. It seems that during the first quarter of the year 1889 or 1890 Che believed it was lSS9) the Sheriff of the county, O'Neill, presented bill to the Supervisors at the end of that quarter, as required by law, and the Supervisors in looking over the claim found many items that they did not think were correct and they allowed tine claim for about SGOOO. The Sheriff was not satisfied with the allowance but accepted the county warrants for the amount allowed by the Board of Super visors and some time afterwards made out new claims embracing the same items and some other additional items for which he sued in the original action, filing anew his claims, Crediting that claim with the amount allowed by the Board, and suing for the balance, Amounting to about S35O0. It developed upon the trial that the Board of Super visors declined to act on the second claim and took no action upon it what ever. The minute entry was that the Board declined to act, either to reject or to allow It, for the reason that the irems embraced in that bill, or q major ity of them. hal already been acted upon by them and therefore they would take no action ln the matter.
 These facts or some of them are set up in the complaint, with this addition, however, that the Yavapai Board UI Supervisors before the warrants were ac- Cepted by the Sheriff, entered into a stipulation with the Sheriff, which stip- uIatlOn appellants claim to be void. In the complaint there were two counts, one for services in the old quarter and the other for services in the second quarter, both in the same condition, ex- cept that the stipulation applied only to the second quarter.
 Appellant claims that excessive and unaulhOrIzrd ices were charged lOr ser vices themselves unauthorized bv stat ute; that O'NeiIl had already received an amount in excess Of any legal demand he could have; the county or taxpayers are not liable for services unauthorized by statute; charges in the grain-rUbbery services had been made each way Tor mileage instead Oi but one and mileage charged for prisoners as well as for officer, and for mileage in roundabout route instead of direct course, and other reasons, all of which were charges unauthorized bylaw, and for which the county is not liable; that having once accepted the award of the Board, he cannot thereafter legally claim payment of the balance not al- lowed by said Board, but acted on by it.
 MT. Baldwin is to follow with the argument for appellee, O'Neill com mencing with the morning hour of the Court t0a m.), at the conclusion of which argument counsel for appellant is to close, and the case be submitted to the Court.
 The Court notified the bar that it pre- ferred, during the remainder of the present sitting of the Court, that argu- ments should be made and business pre- sented during the morning session each day, in order that they might have the afternoon to themselves for the consid- eration of decisions.