The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1895-07-26
DEVLIN'O DEMURRER OVERRULED.
Objections in Supervisor Jenkins Case
Sustained.
The Other Supervisors VIII Have to
Answer the Accusation Be-
fore Jury.

Jenkins and Curtis was argued before
Judge Catlin yesterday.
r. 7. Devlin, of counsel for the Super
visors, contended against the legal sui
ficiency of the complaints. contending
shat the Supervisors in allowing the
claims specified in it had not exceeded
their authority and had acted in what
they considered was the interest of the
county. He quoted q large number OF
cases in this State in which the decisions
were in favor of the arguments advanced
by him. DE contended that the state
ments IN the complaints that the claims
were illegally allowed were conclusions
OF law and not of fact and that no facts
were stated on which to base such con-
illusions. He quoted from several dec-
sions that every fact and circumstance
constituting cause must be alleged and
proved.
He further argued that if any officers
were at fault for drawing claim against
the county il WAS not the Supervisors,
and cited authority in support of his po-
alton. They were obliged TO vote in one
way or the other and could be compelled
to do so by the court if they refused, and
this accusation seemed to De based on the
assumption that If they did not vote to
the law provided certain things, that they
were guilty of malfeasance.
The court asked II, IN case they voted
for a claim that was illegal, they were not
liable, and the attorney answered that
they had to interpret the law, having Ju-
dicial functions, and If they made mis-
take through ignorance that did not argue
corrupt intent. which was necessary IN or
der to Justify removal. The court differed
from hin, and thought a person could be
removed for ignorance, and Devlln said
that he had never known a person to be
removed on account OF insanity, which
he thought stronger cause Tor removal
than ignorance. Lawyers often make
mistakes as to the law, as do even the
courts, as may be seen by the frequent
reversal by the Supreme Court OF de-
cisions, but that fact is not held to be
cause for removal,
Taxing up the claim of one OF the Dep
uty Assessors, he said that it was not
stated III the complaint either that the
work was not done; that the Supervisor
was bribed to vote ter il; that there was a
meeting Of the board, or that he voted as
such meeting, or that his vote was the
one that allowed the claim. On the other
hand, the law, which be read, said the
Supervisors must allow the Assessor
such extra deputies as he needed. No.
body attempted to enjoin them. or went
into court with q complaint III order to
prevent them from allowing the claim.
The claim of X. I. Cohn for re-index-
ing anu arranging old records was taken
up, and he said that the Board of Super
Yisors had charge of the records and had
to allow bills for binding them and other
expenses of the Office, and it was not the
duty of the Auditor TO go back and make
up the deficiencies OF his predecessors,
and If the board thought it IN the interest
OF the county to have The work done. they
had q right to do so. The case OF Wach-
horst was similar. The complaint does
not allege facts TO prove 1t an illegal
claim.
The claim of the railroad company for
expense of overhead roadway on the
now bridge across the Sacramento River
was next taken up. There is no ques-
ton that it is the duty of the Supervisors
TO build bridges, and this claim was pre-
scented under contract, he sald.
In regard 10 the claim of II. 5. CrOcker
Il Co., he argued that there was a fund
created, and authorized to be expended
IN promoting immigration, and that they
were simply carrying out the law author
iZing them to eXpeud money for that pur-
pose. The complaint does not show why
their action in this matter is illegal, or
that it is so. All the claims, upon their
face, seem to be proper county charges,
and if they are not 80, there is nothing in
the complaint to show that they are not.
These claims, he said, were allowed
under the law, which authorizes the SUI
perVisors to incur expenses for the use
and benefit OF the county, and there Is
nothing in the complaint that shows they
were unlawful, or incurred with corrupt
intent.
The statute of limitations, he claimed,
barred all the claims except that of W ach-
horst, shutting out all misdemeanOrs after
lapse OF year.
He called attention to the suit of J.
Charles J oneS against the county, Jones
having been employed as assistant to the
District Attorney, and payment for his
services having been refused. Hesued and
won his case.
District Attorney Ryan took up the
claims in relation TO the statute of limita-
tons, and stated that those or Wachhorst
and Cohn and the contract of Croker IL
Co. were allowed within the year before
complaint was made. That OF the bridge
was in 1898. He cited authorities TO prove
that the allegations In the complaint were
sufficient. The matter of whether or not
the claims were legal charges against the
county is TO be determined upon the hear
ing. The prosecution was not bound to
SET out in the complaint he said, the
proof that the action was corrupt. AS to
where the votes were cast, he thought
that it would be idle to suppose that it
could be otherwise than at meeting.
.
upon the statute OF limitations. The
present proceedings, he said, were very
different from the usual ones. When a
person is charged with crime it is neces-
sary to define the specific crime. a per-
son is liable to removal II guilty OF will
ful or corrupt misconduct IN office, but
the statute does not declare what Is will
full or corrupt misconduct III Office, and
that fact must be determined by jury
under the direction of the court. They
could not. therefore, be specified in the
complaint The rules that apply TO an
indictment do not apply to this action.
The claim of Irvine showed, he said, that
the Board of Supervisors allowed II. and
il must have been in session, or il would
not have been q board. The allegation
that il was an illegal claim was not con-
clusion Of law, as had been argued, but
was a statement of fact, as was tie state
ment that il was done knowingly and
Corruptly.
In 1893 there was no law authorizing
the payment of any Deputy Assessor out
OF the funds of the county. and no law
has authorized it since, he claimed. The
decision in Dougherty VS.. Austin was
against it.
Z. L. Jones said that the gentleman had
not answered Mr.. Deylin on most OF his
important points. de thought the whole
case was comprised in the statement OF
the demurrer that the complaint was
not legally sufficient. He thought the
rule ls that II we take the pleading alone,
we must DE governed by what the plead
ing alleges. If it does not show that a
claim is illegal. it is defective If an in
formation charges murder or larceny, it
is good under the law. as they are specific
crimes, but there are many other otfenses
that must be more specifically stated.
He cited authorities to show that in such
cases something more was necessary
than the mere words OF the statute.