The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-25
AS TO QUESTIONS OF LAW,
Four Important Opinions by
Attorney-General Fitz-
gerald.
Rights Of Supervisors to Transfer
County Funds-ReWards for
Officers.

Officers.
Attorney General Fitzgerald has rem
dered four interesting decisions. The first
was in reply to an inquiry from John E.
Raker, the District Attorney of Modoc
County, relative to the right of the Board
of Supervisors to direct the County Treas
urer to transfer county money from one
fund to another to suit their convenience
and to meet the various claims against the
county. The opinion will be of interest to
every Supervisor in the State and it is as
follows:
am in receipt of your favor of recent date in
which you state that on the Goth day of June,
1895, the County Treasurer of your county
acting under the provisions of section go of
the county government act of 1893, trans
ferred from the county general fund to the
salary fund OF the county the sum of $500;
that subsequently, the salaries for the month
of June amounting to $1430 80. were paid out
of the money so transferred, leaving balance
in the salary fund OF $1,000 20 over and above
all salaries 10 be paid in the fiscal year ending
June 80 1895: that certain claims against the
county, aggregating about $4,000 for the last
fiscal year have been allowed by the Board of
Supervisors, and warrants therefor have been
drawn by the Auditor. but that there is no
money in the general fund to pay warrants for
such claims; that no more revenue for the last
fiscal year. will be collected by the county, and
that your Board of Supervisors has ordered the
Treasurer to retransfer the surplus so remain
ing in the salary fund after the payment of the
salaries of the last month of the last fiscal year
to the general fund.
In reply to your question as to whether or
not your board has the power to compel the
Treasurer TO retransfer this surplus, am of
the opinion that under the provisions of Sec
ton 220 of the county government act OF 1898,
above referred to, the County Treasurer has no
power TO transfer from the general fund to the
salary fund any greater sum of money than
may be necessary to pay the salaries as they
become due" In other words, that il, when
the salaries become due, there is not sufficient
money in the salary fund to pay them suffi-
cient money may be transferred from the gen.
erai fund TO the salary fund TO pay them and
no more. Therefore, the transfcrence by the
Treasurer from the general fund to the salary
fund OF more money than was necessary at the
time to pay the salaries due was in effect no
transfer at all. Furthermore, under subdi-
vision 20 OF section 25 of the county govern
ment act Statutes OF 1898, $3.50. the Board of
Supervisors has power "to transfer moneys
from one fund to another as public interest
may require" 1t follows that, as the transfer
OF this surplus money was in effect no transfer
at ALL it is still in the general fund and availa-
BILE for the payment of claims against the
county for the last fiscal year; and that even if
1t were valid transfer the Board OF Superyi-
sors has power under the section last cited to
order its retransference.
Another opinion was upon the necessity
of those elected to positions of School
Trustees Immediately filing statement
under the purity of elections act of 1898.
Mr.. Fitzgerald's answer to the inquirer
reads:
In reply to your favor of recent date, and to
your question "Must candidate selected to
the Office of School Trustee OH the first Friday,
not in an incorporated city or town, file a
statement under section of an act to promote
the purity of elections, ETC. (Statutes 1893,
Id 2Y | of the OpiDiOn that nndnr Coo
ton 3 OF the purity of elections law, which
provides that Every candidate that is voted
for at any public election held within the
State" must comply with.the provisions of that
section, and as section 1898 of the Political
Code as amended in 1898 is a general law of
this State and provides for public election of
a School Trustee, and as section 1902 of the
Political Code as amended in 1893 provides
that "the officers of the election must publicly
canvass the votes Immediately after closing
the polls, and as there is nothing in the law
providing for the election of School Trustees
as amended in 1898, which exempts such
trustees from the operation OF section of the
purity of elections law, the candidate for
School Trustee voted for at such election must
comply with the provisions OF section of sal
act and file the statement therein prescribed.
To M. R. Higgins, the Insurance Com
missioner, the Attorney General sent the
annexed opinion:
In reply to your favor of the 9th ult con-
corning the bond given by a land title COM
pany of Alameda County, State of California,
and to your question as to whether or not such
bond constitutes insurance of title it is my
opinion that the bond is unquestionably an
attempt on the part of the land title com pany
to do title insurance business. The bond in
terms insures the title certified to be correct
and insures the owner against all damages not
to exceed $500, for any defect, errors or omis-
sions in the statements of the title. The COM
pany, it is true, contends that this is a limita-
ton of their liability for damages caused by an
error in their certificate; but, If so, it is an at
tempt to limit their liability under the guise of
insuring the title, and should not be permitted
unless the company fully complies with the
laws of this State concerning title insurance.
The question as to the circumstances
under which peace officers may claim re-
wards for the arrest and conviction of
criminals has caused many arguments.
To such officers, particularly those in the
interior of the State, Mr.. Fitzgerald's
opinion will be of great interest. 1t is in
an answer to letter from State Con-
troller E. P. Colgan, and the Attorney
General says:
In reply to your favor of the 9TH inst. in re-
gard to the claim for $500 reward for the arrest
and conviction of Charles Douty for highway
robbery, presented by S. A. ]. Eckles and APP
proved by the. Board OF Examiners on the I'd
inst. (which claim was subsequently recalled
by the board for further consideration, and to
your question as 10 whether or not, in view of
the fact. that Mr.. Eckles was public officer,
viz: City Marshal OF the city OF Redding at
the time he made the arrest he is entitled to
the reward, l am of the opinion that the arrest
of highway robbers who are apprehended out
side of the city limits of the city of Redding is
not among the duties prescribed by law for the
City Marshal for the city of Redding and that,
therefore, Mr.. Eckles, i'll making such arrest,
stands upon the same footing as any other
Citizen and is therefore entitled to the reward
-----
The Original PopuIist.