The herald., 1893-12-13
THE TREASURER'S TURN NOW.
Auditor Teale Must Number
and Record.
Tessa KelsO Wins the First Round
in the Library Litigation.
Judge Shaw Says That the Expensive
Librarians Demand Must be
Numbered and Re-
corded.

Ieesa keleo, the expensive appenoage
of an expensive institution, came out
ahead yesterday in her suit against Au-
ditor Teale to compel him to number
and record her unitemized demand
against the city for 5000.
Judge Shaw, in his opinion granting
the writ of mandate, says:
The principal objections made by the
defendant to the granting OF the petition
are: First, that the claim presented ia
not itemized as required by the charter |;
and, second, that it appears upon the
face Of the petition that it is not legal
demand upon the library fund; and
that for both these reasons the auditor
cannot be compelled to do any act in
relation to it.
Judge Shaw then cited the eections
and provisions of the city charter ap-
plicable to the case which have before
been mentioned in these columns. He
then deduces the following:
"The claim under consideration is az
follows, towit: Auditors No. -, 5000,
library fund. Los Angeles, CAL, Sept.
5, 1898. Tessa L. Kelso presents this
demand on the treasury of the city of
Los Angeles for the sum of 5000, as
itemized below. Signature.
To amount appropriated on account Of
expense of delegate representing this
library at the worlds congress of
Librarians and to the American Library
association conference, 10th to oath
July, as -.per resolution passed 9th of
June. 1893, by the board of directors OF
the Los Angeles public library, $780, :"
While it may be that this claim is not
as particularly itemized as it should be,
and that the auditor may have been
justified in rejecting it in the first in
stance on that account, yet think that,
after it has been again presented to the
board of directors and the objections of
the auditor in that particular have been
overruled, as provided in section 214,
that question is settled SO far as the &C.
tion of the auditor is concerned. 1t is
true that section 2l5 provides that no
demand can be audited unless it specify
each severa, item, with the date and
amount thereof. But section 216 de-
fines what is meant by the term "audit-
ed: :" and by that definition this claim
was fully. audited when the board of di-
rectors approved the claim tine second
time.
Under these provisions of the charter
the auditor ie given no discretion to act,
or to refuse to act, upon claim except
when it is first presented to him for ap.
proval. 1t ia made his duty at that
time to ''satiefy himself whether the
money is legally due and remains un-
paid, and whether the payment thereof
from the city treasury is authorized by
law" Any objections he may have to
the demand must be made at that time.
No authority is given him to make them
afterward.
When his objections have been made
and have been overruled, it must be
held that he cannot be allowed to per-
fhem.A Ihs iHs eas~. 81 overruling an OBJ.
lection is to put an end to it. 1t can.
not again be raised by the party who
made 1t, unless another appeal is pro.
vided to a still higher tribunal, which
is not the case here. If the auditor
could continue 10 make the some OBJ
lection after it is overruled, it would
follow that he would be the sole and
final Judge of the validity and legality
of all demands against the city. The
intention of the charter is plainly the
reverse of this. Ths action of the board
in overruling his objection lie final so far
as he ia concerned. Strength ia added
to this conclusion by reference to Sec
tions 218 and 219. These provide that
the auditor must number and keen a
record OF all demands his objection to
which have been overruled, but that
the treasurer is required to pay none
except lawful demands. No discre-
tion is here given to the auditor in re-.
gard to numbering and recording de.
mands, but the treasurer is clearly re-
quired to decide whether or not a de-
mand is lawful before he pays it. The
difference in the phraseology mnst have
been intentional, and the object clearly
was to have q record made of all de-
mands, whether legal or illegal. 1t was
held in the case OF Falk vs. Strother.
81 CAL, 554, under law similar to this.
that mandamua should be Issued to
compel the auditor to act after his OBJ.
jections have been overrnled. Upon
the authority OF that case the application
OF the petition should be granted.
The point is urged that under section
2l5 no demand can be audited "unless
it specify each several item, with the
date and amount thereof"
Conceding that this demand ia not so
itemized. it does not follow that il
should not be numbered and recorded.
That action is no part of the process of
auditing. By the definition of that term
given in section ZIG the auditing ia COM
pleted when the objections of the aud
itor are overruled and this action ia in
dorsed on the demand. This demand.
therefore, is already audited, and sec.
tion 2l5 does not apply. The TACT that
the board has thus audited demand
which is not properly itemized furnishes
no ground for the auditor to refuse to
perform the subsequent duty of number.
ing and recording it. The auditor is not
required to answer for or decide upon
the legality OF the action of the board
taken after his objections are overruled.
''It may be admitted that if it an.
peared, either on the face OF the demand.
or from the facts alleged in the an.
swer. and proven, that the demand
was for matter as to which
the library directors have no
Jurisdiction, and entirely foreign to the
scope of their powers and duties. no writ