Daily independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 188?-1915, 1897-07-10
AN ECHO OF 1894.


permitted to swiudle the county ont
Of about $1,000 in 1894 ia having a
hard time collecting it's bills from
Washoe county. The Washoe COM
missioners played the same crooked
dodge on the people that the Elko
commissioners did, but were unable
to get away with the swag as auditor
Shearer vetoed all of the bills in ex-
cess VI 500. and the company was
forced TO go into the courts. Here it
met with an adverse decision from
Judge cheney who held that the con-
tract made with Washoe county was
fraudulent and made with intent to
evade the plain letter OF the law. Not
content WITH the rebuff the company
sued the county again and has again
been thrown out OF court on the same
ground.
Judge Cheney's decision on the de.
murrer to the complaint of the com.
pany bears out the INDEPE.DENT's
criticisms Of the action OF our COM
missioners in precisely the same
transaction. In the Washoe county
case the court held that the the con-
tract made between the commission
ers and the company was 80 saturated
with fraud that no court would en-
force it. The company Jared better
here because the auditor failed to do
hi' duty in the premises and veto the
bills.
The decision Of Judge Cheney is of
interest to the swindled taxpayers OF
Elko county and especially 30 to the
INDEP DENT as it denounced the
contract with the Elko commission
era as illegal and fraud upon the
taxpayers. For thus It's editor was
abused and threatened with personal
violence in the grand jury room when
before that body as witness. Not.
wishatandng this abuse and the
threats Of Its enemies, the INDEPEN-
DENT Kept up the fight and now has
the good fortune to have it's course
endorsed by Judge Cheney in his de-
cision. 1t is only another evidence
that trnth is mighty and will pre-
vail
Following is an extract from Judge
Cheney's decision:
"Uuder these circumstances shown
by plaintiffs complaint. am unable
to perceive how equity or good con.
science can invoke to release the
plaintiff from the tolls of its pretend
ed, illegal enterprise. Neither hon.
esty, fair dealing nor public morality
will DO promoted by enabling. u per-
son to recover the reasonable value
OF goods furnished in an attempt to
circumvent wise statutory regulations
essential for the protection of the
public from unlawful acts Of officials,
when the contract is denied enforce
ment because Of its illegality. 10
my mind the action, instead OF com
ing within the intent Of the equitable
rule invoked by plaintiff, is governed
by those ancient maxims OF the law
which declare that "a right action
cannot arise out Of fraud
"Courts Of Justice do not sit to ex-
tricate u rogue from the toile; on the
contrar! IL is the policy Of common
sense md common law to environ 9
person with all possible perils and &c
make it apparent that honesty ia th,
best policy.
"Ihe defense that the claim
sued on WIS not presented within th,
time allowed by law is well taken
This claim is either the same or ,
different one from what was first nrs
sented. II it is the same, no action on,
bo maintained on it because or IN,
illegality OF the contract. II It ia a d;,
ferent one, no action can be maintain
Cd because it was not presente,
within elk months from the time IN
goods we're delivered or the tim
when It became due and payahl,