Los Angeles herald., 1892-07-03
FIVE DAYS TOO LATE.
A Remarkable Case Against the
Southern Pacific.
District Attorney McLachlan Proves
to Be Laggard.
The Taxpayers Lose n Pretty Penny
Through His Supposed Ignorance of
the Statute of Limitation The
Facts of the Case.

1t came to light at the court house
yesterday that the county of Los An
geles has lost s37. .565.23 through the
negligence of the district attorney and
the attaches of his Office, and thereby
hangs tale of mournful interest to the
taxpayers of this county.
The above loss was brought about by
the district attorneys Office failing to
bring suit against the Southern Pacific
Railroad company within the period of
the statute of limitation covering such
cases, and the remarkable feature about
the whole business is that the suits
against the Southern Pacific Railroad
company were actually filed four or five
days after the statutory period of limita-
tion had expired, and the question nat
urally arises why these suits were not
brought few days before the
time of limitation instead OF q
few days afterward. Here is an
opportunity for some one to rise
up and explain, as we'll as submit dia-
grams for the benefit OF the taxpayers.
According to the returns the Southern
Pacific Railroad company was indebted
to the county of Los Angeles for delin-
quent taxes on the last Monday of De-
cember, 1887. 70 the amount of $2O,-
149 03 and $500. "a in two separate items.
To these items, under the law, per
cent was added on account of delin-
quency, making the whole amount $21,-
$40. %. AS this tax was allowed to re-
main delinquent for three years subse-
quent to January 16. 1888, there should
also be added under the law to the
above amount, interest at the rate OF 2
per cent per month, or SIS, 7249S. This
brings the total amount due to the
county OF Los Angeles from the South
taxes in question, up to S37, ,565 %, GER
tainly snug little sum in the eyes of
the taxpayers.
subject shows that three years is fixed
all actions for liabilities created by stat
ute or than penalties or forfeitures, and
taxes come within the limit mentioned.
The question of watching this matter
lay entirely in the Office office, of the dis
trict attorney, for such suits are brought
in the name OF the county of Los An
geles. Suits in this instance should
have been commenced by the district
attorney within three years from the
time the delinquent tax list of the
county was certified by the count tax
collector to the county auditor. This
was done on January 16, 1888.
Now comes the most remarkable part
of the proceeding, which indicates that
the attaches of the district attorneys
Office must have known of this just
claim of the county against the railroad
company on or about the time that the
| statute of limitations expired.
Suits numbers IA ,517 and IA, 532 were
filed respectively by District Attorney
McLachlan in the county clerks office
in behalf of Los Angeles county against
the Southern Pacific Railroad company
on January 20, 1881, six days late, and
on January "a, 1891. eight days later
than the statutory period of limitation.
As a natural consequence the attorneys
of the Southern Pacific Railroad COM
pany have quietly sprung the statUte of
limitation as an answer to these suits,
and the county gets thin plate of null
ligatawny.