The record-union., 1895-10-03
A1tarnoon Session.


county. IL was necessary 10 have the
assessment roll in time.
Afternoon Session.
When court reconvened in the after
noon Mr.. Morehouse resumed the stand
and testified that Il. c. Irvine asked his
opinion in the case OF the deputies, and
that he told him to first exhaust his
chances with the Supervisors before COM
ing to the State Board with a request for
the appointment OF deputies, and after
that the board would consider his request.
K. Ii. Beamer, of the State Board of
Equalization, testified that the board took
no action regarding deputies unless re-
quest WAS made, and when made 1t ex-
amined into the matter to find what the
necessity for the appointment was. If it
was found necessary to appoint deputies,
and the Supervisors had refused, the
State Board authorized the appointment
of them. at the expense OF the county.
S. w. Greeninger, Supervisor of Santa
Clara County, was put on the stand, for
the purpose OF testifying that the board
of that county, by The advice of the Dis
trict Attorney, had appointed and paid
deputies, just as THIS board had done
Judge HoIl objected TO his testimony as
irrelevant, and the court sustained the
objection.
G. NJ. Coglau, Clerk of the Slate Board
of Equalization, brought his records to
show that the State Board of Equalization
had appointed deputies in several coun-
ties.
Mr.. Holl objected, and the court ruled
that the testimony was merely cumulat-
i've, Mr.. Morehouse having already testi-
fed to that effect. and the objection was
sustained.
r. C. Irvine testified to asking the Su-
pervisors to allow him to appoint extra
deputies, after showing to them that il
was i'm possible for him TO complete his
work III time. with his present force, and
that his salary would not allow him to
employ extra deputies. He showed them
the opinion OF the Attorney General, and
of Deputy AttOrney-General Layson, and
also certificates from other counties, show
ing that they had been allowed deputies.
He also showed them that the Assessors
duties were different from those of other
county officers. he could not begin on
his county assessment roll before March
lst and must finish it by July lst. He
could not nave possibly finished his roll
in time had the board not allowed him
the deputies. He consulted the State
Board of Equalization. and was told that
he must first consult the Supervisors and
see if they would not allow him the
deputies, and if they would not the State
Board would determine the matter.
He had no deputies allowed him in
1891 and only one in 1892, all he ask cd
for. He asked for assistance in 1892 be-
cause he had no money to pay deputies,
and did not propose to ask any man to
work Tor nothing.
William Curtis, the defendant, was put
on the stand and testified that he voted
for Irvins's claim and thought he did his
duty and was right i'll doing SO. He had
no interest whatever in the claim. The
demands OF Irvine were not allowed till
January, because the case of the Assist
ant District Attorney was on trial and the
board wanted TO see it settled first. After
it was decided against the county, the
claim was allowed. He was influenced
in his action by the opinion of the Attor-
ney-General. He always believed. after
that opinion was rendered, that the board
had right TO allow the claims.
George ID. Irvine testified that he had
work ed faithfully for the county and that
he gave no part of his salary to Super
visor Curtis.
Mr.. Devlin offered In evidence the
papers in the suit of j. Charles Jones
against the county, 10 show that the board
waited until the case WAS decided against
the county. Mr.. Holl objected. MIR.
Devlin said in reply that the board, as
good, prudent business men, waited for
the decision and then paid the other
claims, the one IN question among them,
by the advice OF the District Attorney.
He tDevlin) and j. w. Hughes, being
consulted as TO the advisa bility of ap-
pealing the case, advised tnat il be ap-
pealed. The District Attorney advised
differently, and the board followed his
advice, and also allowed the claims of the
other deputies.
Mr.. Ryan said the decision ran only to
the case of MIR. Jones, and did not touch
bat af n RI
The court overruled the objection, and
the decision of the court in tho Jones case
was admitted III evidence, as also the
records OF the Supervisors relative there
to. and then the defense rested.
The jury was excused until 4 o'clock,
and Mr.. Devlin, addressing the court,
said that as the facts on both sides were
admitted, and as there was no conflict
and no rebuttal, there was only ques-
ton OF law, and he moved, therefore, that
the court instruct the jury TO acquit. Ii
the position taken by Mr.. Holl was cor
rect, any Supervisor who honestly re-
fuses to allow a lawful bill may be guilty
of misconduct; the Board of Equalization
may be guilty of misconduct in changing
the assessments OF the counties, and the
Attorney General may be guilty of mis-
conduct in scattering his opinion broad
cast over the State, IL it turns out he is
mistaken as to the law.
The Assessor, while in one sense
county officer. is, in the sense that he
must have his assessment roll ready by
July lst in order that the State tax may
be levied, under the control of the State
Board of Equalization. and if his roll is
not ready for it in time it is made the
duty OF the Attorney General to sue him,
as the State is directly interested in hav-
ing the roll of each county from which TO
make the levy for the whole State. There
was not one particle of evidence to show
any corrupt or willful misconduct on
the part of the defendant. Under the law
Irvine might have been paid 50 day, but
the Assessor did not ask more than SI00
month; nor did the board allow more.
The prosecution, instead of offering any
evidence that there was corrupt ihten-
ton, wished To assume that the law
did not allow the board to grant such
claims. AS a matter of fact, there was no
decision OF law TO support the contention,
as the case of Dougherty VS.. Austin did
not touch il.
c. L. Jones, for the defense, said the
usual procedure in criminal cases was to
ask that the jury bo instructed tha, there
was not sufficient evidence to convict; but
this case was different. Tho instruction
here should be that there was no evil
dence OF corrupt or wIilful misconduct