The record-union., 1895-10-03

show any wrong intention on the part OF
Mr.. Curtis. The Supreme Court has de-
cided that an officer cannot be removed
from office who has acted in good faith.
Mr.. Curtis is farmer, not supposed to
be acquainted with the law, and must
rely on the opinions of those who were
supposed to know, and act in accordance
with them.
Mr.. Holl argued that if any officer
willfully committed an act which was in
violation of an express law, 1t was no
defense to say that he was ignorant Of the
law and that he was advised to act as he
did. The prosecution did not claim that
they had proved corrupt misconduct. but
only willful misconduct
He contended that the County Govern
ment Act prohibited the Supervisors
from committing the acts complained OF
in this case, and therefore the action was
willful He read from several decisions
in support of this claim, and also re-
ferred to the codes to show the meaning
of the word willful and what constitutes
willful misconduct He claimed that
ignorance of the law did not excuse will
fulness. 1t was not necessary to prove
intent, but it is sufficient to show viola
ton of the mandate of the law even if
the accused honestly believed he has the
right to do as he did, or acted under bad
advice.
He read several decisions Of the Su-
preme Court of California to support
this position and also to maintain his
contention that Attorney General Hart
was in error. and that the passage of the
County Government Act repealed the
sections of the code under which the de-
fendant claims to have acted, under
which Attorney General Hart gave his
opinion, and under which the State
Board OF Equalization claimed it's au-
thority to act in the matter of the appoint
ment of deputies. He claimed that since
the Act OF 1888 no law has existed au-
thoriZing county officers to appoint
extra deputies, and that all officers are
charged with knowledge of the law.
He claimed that the Supreme Court had
decided to this effect and that the LeRls-
lature cannot delegate to Supervisors the
power to tx the compensation OF county
officers. The Attorneys-General and
Boards of Equalization have hello that
deputies may be appointed and paid, and
the Boards of Supervisors have SO ap-
pointed. 1t is all unlawful and uncon-
sututional. The board is bound to a
knowledge of the law, and, refusing to
obey it, it was willful action. persistent
action, with purpose in view, and that
is willfulness, and falls within the law
and the penalty thereof. If that is not
the law, If ignorance and bad advice can
excuse, the treasury can be dissipated by
punishment can protect 1t.
The court disputed the definition Of
misconduct" advanced by Judge Holl.
III the case cited by Judge HOll one hon.
estly yet unlawfully acted, aud was held
to have been willful. But the Supreme
Court reversed that decision because the
act was performed in good faith, and the
officer honestly believed he was acting
within the line of his duty. That Ia the
way the court understood the case.
The court said the statute requires for
conviction misconduct in Office in some
cases it is "willfup' and in some ''cor-
rupt." What is misconduct? Is il that
which is donei in honest conviction of duty?
Misconduct here involves willful or cor
rupt misconduct; that implies that there is
conduct that may be neither willful nor
corrupt. So 1t leaves wrongdoing the In
tention to do wrong, not merely the in
tention to do an act, but intent to do q
wrong thing. AS TO whether an Attorney
General is right OR wrong in advice may
cut no figure in the matter OF defend
ants intent. There are some cases there,
in the very nature of things, wrongful
intent is assumed by the law. The court
was. therefore, satisfied that in the ab
sence OF intent to do a wrongful act there
is no violation of the law involved. There
is no evidence here showing any intent
OF wrong, nor any corruption, on the
part of the defendant. Though man
may be IN error as to his authority to
allow these deputies, 1t does not follow
that his action is misconduct. Here
there is nothing to show that defendant
was acting except as he believed to be lis
duty. He therefore instructed the jury
to render a verdict of not guilty and it
was done. the court telling the jurors
there was not before them facts TO justify
any other verdict.
prosecution, was asked by whom he was
employed in the case, but declined to
answer, further than to say that he was
employed by some citizens.