The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1897-12-11
Important Decision Rendered BY tbO
Supreme Court.
OFFICES TO Be SELF-SUSFAIEIEG,
That Was the Intent Of the Trainers of
the Constitution Lecture ON the
Celestial Emplre-Dedicated to Mrs.
Mckinley.

Following is the opinion of Chief
Justice Sullivan in the case of James
Woodward, appellant, VS.. Board of
County Commissioners of Idaho Coun-
ty. The opinion is concurred in by
Justices Huston aud Quarles.
SYLLABUS.
l. Under the provisions of Sec. 6
Art. 8, of the constitution, the Board
of County Commissioners must author.
ize the Clerk of Court, and ex.officio
Auditor and Recorder, to employ a
deputy whenever it is shown that a
necessity exists therefor, and the facts
creating the necessity ought to be
shown upon the record of the board.
2. If the necessity for the appoint.
ment of deputy is occasioned by the
sickness or absence of the Clerk on
business, not connected with his office.
the county is not liable for the com
pensatiOn of the deputy.
8. The intent of the frames of the
constitution, was to limit the costs of
the office of Clerks o. the District
Cou.t, to the fees provided ior by law.
except when such fees did not amount
to the minimum fixed by the constitu-
ton.
F. E. FOcg and James Woodward,
for appellant.
SULLIVAN. c. j.
This is an appeal from an order OF
the Board of County Commissioners,
of Idaho County, allowing A. W. Tax
ington, Clerk of the District courS, s24O
quarterly salary foe a deputy clerk.
The appeal was taken to the District
court, and the action of the Board was
sustained. Thereupon, an appeal was
taken to this court.
1t was contended that said allowance
:Or deputy clerk was illegal:
First. Because any allowance in ex.
cess of the fees earned by the Office
is unauthorized by the constitution, or
any law of the state.
Second. because the necessity for
the employment of deputy clerk had
not, heretofore, been determined by
said board.
Several errors are assigned. But in
our view of the case.it is only necessary
for US to pass upon one of them, to wit:
The court erred in finding that the en-
ployment of deputy was necessary.
After a most careful consideration
of the transcript we find no evidence
sustaining said finding, and the courts
conclusion of law based thereon, is
erroneous.
A. W. TalkingtOn testified in his
own behalf, and records were introdu-
ced, showing the allowance of the
Clerks bill for deputy clerk hire $24O.
Also the report of said clerk to the
Board, showing his fees and commits.
siOns for the year 1895, which sggre.
gated $2S59.75, He also testified that
he had received $40 per quarter for
deputy clerk hire for the year 1895,
which last mentioned sum he paid over
to his deputy. The District Attorney
prepOunded the following question to
the witness.
%. Mr.. Talkington, you may state
what number of deputies, if any,
were required to transact the business
of your Office as recorder aud clerk of
the court during the year 1885,"
"a. l have one deputy, but at two
different times think, IL l remember
right, 1 employed another deputy for
about week each time, that 1 paid
myself"
The foregoing is all the evidence in
the case, except. in response to a ques-
ton by the appellant, the witness stat
ed, that he was not present during the
whole year in his office.
The evidence is wholly insufficient to
establish the necessity for employing a
deputy, and paying him out of county
funds. If the clerk vas sick and un.