The record-union., 1895-10-03
SUPERVISOR CURTIS ACQUITTED.
The Court Instructs the Jury to Bring
in That Verdict.
Jurors Roast the Grand Jury and
Denounce the Accusation as
an Outrage.

Grand Jury, of which II. M. LaRue
was Foreman and G. III. Hubbard Secre-
tary, against Supervisor Curtis for wlllful
corruption and wrong doing in Office was
resumed in Judge Catlin's court yester-
day and brought to q conclusion that did
not surprise those who heard the testi-
mony.
The jury was instructed by the Judge
to acquit the defendant, as there was not
. particle of evidence tending to show
corrupt intent, while it was shown that
Curtis acted under legal advice and for
what he considered the best interests OF
the county.
After the jury went out into the hall
they gathered into knot and denounced
he accusation as one of the greatest out
RACES they had ever known. and said they
would have acquitted Mr.. Curtis even if
they had not been SO instructed. Ihey
looked on the suit as a persecution, and
said the Grand Jury should be compelled
to pay the costs of the suit. as it had the
same evidence before it that was pre-
sented to them.
County Clerk Hamilton resumed the
stand and testified concerning the records
OF the SupefNlSOTS pIOC6oO1hSS' ~
quest of Assessor Irvine for the allow
ance to him of extra deputies, In order
that he might be able to complete his
assessment roll, it having been delayed
by bad roads and weather, was read.
Attorney Holl objected strenuously to
its introduction, but was overruled by
the court.
Attorney R. T. Devlin also offered in
evidence the communication OF j. Charles
Jones, calling the attention OF the board
10 the Judgment obtained by him against
the county tor his salary as Assistant Dis
trict Attorney, but the court sustained an
objection TO its Introduction.
Auditor Cohn was recalled and similar
testimony concerning his office was also
ruled out, the defense noting eXceptlonS
to the rulings.
The prosecution then announced that
their case was made.
Mr.. Devlin then addressed the jury.
saying that were it not for the attack on
tie moral character of Mr.. Curtis he would
ask the court to dismiss the case. He
would show the jury, however, from the
lips OF the then Attorney-General what
the law was at That time, and that the Su
pervisors acted upon his opinion and
that of the State Board of Equalization.
He would show them that the law gave
the State Board of Equalization power
to appoint deputies to the Assessor, at the
expense OF the county, if the Supervisors
neglected or refused to do SO. He would
show them also that previously the Su-
perior Court of the county had given
judgment against the county for the
salary of j. Charles Jones, Assistant Dis
trict Attorney, W hich the board had con-
tested. The board was naturally guided
by the advice of officers who knew the
law that they had power TO pay the depu
ties.
uspT TrSTTErES
w. II. ii. Hart, ex-Attorney- General,
testified to rendering his opinion in June,
1892, 500 copies of which were sent out to
the various District Attorneys and As
SCISSORS in the State. His opinion covered
three points, two OF them on the en-
ployment OF help for registration. the
third in regard to the employment OF
deputies for Assessors, and the right of
Supervisors to do so.
MIR. Hou objected TO the introduction
OF the testimony. A party could not
urge in defense. he said, that another
party had advised him TO commit crime.
The court asked him if there was no
exception, and he answered that there
was none. The court then asked if the
intent of this action was not to prove
corrupt intention, but Holl claimed that
il was not necessary to prove corruption,
but only to prove that the action was
willful.
The court asked what willful meant,
and he answered that it was only neces-
sary that there should be q purpose TO do
the act The act was not changed be-
cause he was advised to do it. The At
torney-General had advised the board
that they could do what the law said they
could not do
THE COURTS OPINION.
The court read the definition of corrup-
ton, and said be could not see how the
act ot the defendant could be willfully
corrupt unless he knew it to be so. The
term "willful misconduct" he thought,
could not apply to al inadvertent act.
There are many acts done by public Of
ficers that are perhaps not strictly in ac-
Cordance with the law, but they could
hardly be called "willful misconduct
in the sense OF the statute. The statute
could not be construed to make such acts
willful or corrupt misconduct unless the
party knew, or thought he knew, he was
doing wrong.
Mr.. Holl argued that the Supreme
Court, in the case of Dougberty VS.. Aus
tin, had settled that deputies could not be
employed by the board.
Devlin said that the case cited did not
settle this law. The law was, and is now,
that such claims could be paid,
The court ruled that the testimony was
admissible and that under the statute
the law.
Mr.. Hart resumed. saying that the
question was not affected by the decision
in Dougherty vs.. Austin, and that the
law allowed the Supervisor to employ
deputies between March Ist and July Ist.
and that the State Board of Equalization
had power to appoint them If the Super
visors refused. The law was not affected
by the decision in Dougherty VS.. Austin.
Mr.. Devlin asked a question as to the
power OF Supervisors to allow deputies.
General Hart in response to the Ques-
ton read from decision rendered by
him June 30, 1892, to the District At
torney of Alameda County concerning
the right OF the Assessor TO employ depu-
ties. in which he decided: First, that an
Assessor Is entitled TO such deputies as in
she Judgment OF the Board of Super
visors will enable him to complete his
work within the time required by law
If the Supervisors are convinced that
such employment is necessary: second
that the persons so appointed must not
receive more than 80 day nor be en-
ployed more than four months; fourth
that these facts show that ii was within
the contemplation of the Legislature that
these appointments should be considered
s. responsive TO cases exigency; fifth,
that the deputies are provided for by the
law, that it is the duty of the Supervisors
to pay their bills. that If they fail to
authorize the Assessor to employ the
deputies-the necessity existing-the
State Board OF Equalization may do so;
sixth, that the law authorizing this action
was general law and applied TO every
county in the State. and the witness
added that the passage of the County
Government Act did not modify or re-
peal any sections of the law giving this
authority.
Continuing, be said that he had fur
nished the opinion to Assessor Irvine.