The record-union., 1892-05-07

the amount paid to the deputies is an adj
ulClon to the salary of the officer, it fol-
lows that the Auditor has drawn his war
Tants 1or greater salary than that allowed
by law, and the total amount can be re-
covered from him and his bonds
men. The amount can also be re-
covered from the officers TO whom
deputies have been allowed and their
bondsmen, as money paid without
authority OF law. This point was decided
IN People VS.. Chapman, 81 Cal. 262. The
Legislature had passed an Act allowing
the Prison Directors 800 per month for
expenses, and they had drawn it for a
number Of years in good faith, having no
reason to doubt the validity Of the Act.
suit was brought to recover the amount
pad, and judgment was rendered in favor
OF the State for the full amount paid. The
court said: where money has been
drawn from the treasury without au-
thorlty of law, it is recoverable back.
Money thus obtained does not become the
property Of the receiver, and it is uncon-
scIentiouS for him to retain it. At all
events, the receipt is not a voluntary pay
mentwhich precludes the people of the
State from recovering it back"
The statute OF limitations will run
against this claim, as against any other
until suit is commenced to recover,
the oyerpaymentS made under color of
payment OF extra deputies. Undoubtedly
an effort will be made at the next session
of the Legislature to relieve the officers
from the unfortunate predicament in
which they find themselves.
THEY NEED MORE HELP.
Mr.. Devlin says he confined himself
strictly to the legal aspect of the question.
know personally" he says, ''that it is
almost impossible to conduct many of the
county o1lices with less help than now
provided, and to deprive the officers of
these assistants would seriously impede
public business, and some Of the officers
cannot under the salary allowed pay for
all the assistants needed ana retain any
thing for themselves. 1t would be great
hardship to hold the Auditor and his
bondsmen responsible for all the over
payments for the last four years, or to
hold responsible the bondsmen of the
various county officers. 1t is an ex-
tremely unfortunate condition of affairs
but,as in the case of People VS.. Chapman,
any money paid in excess of that legally
allowable can be recovered back in a suit
by the county against the officers and
their bondsmen. But with these consid-
eratlons | have nothing to do. l have
answered your question exclusively from
standpoint of what, in my Judgment.
the law is unless the improbable event
should occur OF the Supreme Court alter
ing its views"
ANXIOUSLY WAITING.
What effect the opinion will have upon
the Board of Supervisors can only be
conJectured. The members are aware of
what the document contains, but when
approached by RECoRD-UNIoN reporter
yesterday declined to say what action
they were likely to take.
The news also got to the ears of the
numerous extra deputies during the
afternoon, and they were in high state
of alarm.
Most of them believe that the board
called for the opinion for the purpose of
deciding what to do in the premises, and
now that the attorney decides against the
deputies, that the board will on Wednes-
day next pass resolution resembling its
former action allowing the appointment
of the deputies. If this is done, it will
render things very inconvenient for the
County Clerk, Assessor, Sheriff and Tax
Collector, Auditor and Recorder, as one
or more extras" are employed by each
of them. Several of the county officers
declare that they cannot possibly conduct
their offices if the deputies are taken from
them.
Notwithstanding this, however. it is
more than probable that the board will
forbid the extras drawing further pay
from the county.