The herald., 1897-02-27
COUNTY OFFICERS SALARY

/
COUNTY OFFICERS SALARY
The Supreme Court Holds That They Are En-.
| tltlsd to the Five Days Pay
| An opinion was received from the
supreme court yesterday wherein the
| Judgment of Judge Shaw that the coun-
ty officers were entitled to salary for
the first five days in 1895 is sustained.
| This mooted point was raised by Henry
| c. Dillon in suit brought against Coun-
| ty Auditor o. c. Bicknell, and the judg
| ment of the lower court now being af-
| firmed, will prevent recurrence of what
has in some cases proved a hardship.
| The plaintiff in the case was elected
district attorney Of Los Angeles county
in November, 1892, and entered upon his
office on January e. 1894 that being the
first Monday after the 1st of January,
and his term of office expired January
Z. 1895, that being also the first Monday
after the first day of January of that
year. The salary was $4,000 per annum,
and he received from the salary fund of
the county $4,000, which was paid him
in monthly installments of 1888 1-3 per
month, by warrants drown by defend
ant upon the county treasurer, as pro-
vided in section 221 Of the county gov
ernment act of 1891. Plaintiff claiming
that he served as district attorney five
more days than two official years, de-
manded of the defendant, as auditor,
that he draw warrant upon the county
treasurer for his salary for said five
days, amounting to $5450. The auditor
refused to issue the warrant and the
trial court, upon petition of plaintiff,
rendered judgment directing a peremp
tory writ of mandate to issue, as prayed
for by plaintiff, and from that judg-
ment defendant appealed.
IT,. s~1 i
quoted Sec. 20 of the constitution, as
follows: Elections of the officers pro-
vided by the constitution, except at the
election in the year 1879, shall be held on
the even numbered years next before
the expiration of their respective terms
Terms of such officers shall commence
on the first Monday after the first day
of January next following their cleo
tion."
Then is quoted Sec 41O9 Of the politi-
cal code, as amended March Z, 1881, as
follows: "All elective, city and town
ship officers, except superior judges, su-
perintendents of schools and assessors,
shall be elected at the general election
to be held in the year 1882, and at the
general election to be held every second
year thereafter, and shall take office
on the first Monday after the first day
of January next succeeding their cleo
ton. and shall hold office for two years.
The years that said officers are to hold
office are to be computed respectively
from and including the first Monday
after the first day of January of any
one year to and including the first Mon
day after the first day Of January of
the next succeeding year; provided. etc"
1T is conceded" says the supreme
court. that if that section of the polit-
ical code is still in force it is conclusive
as to what constitutes the official year,
and that under its provisions the de-
mand made by the plaintiff was unau-
thorized. 1t is contended, however, that
said section has been repealed, and
whether it has been repealed or not is
therefore the controlling question
The county government act of 1883 is
as follows: "The elective county and
township officers Except superintend-
ents of schools and assessors) shall be
elected at the general election. to be
held in November 1884 and evGy two
years thereafter, and shall take office
at II o'clock. meridian, on the first Nor
day after the first day of January next
succeeding their election. All
officers elected under the provisions of
this act shall hold office until their sue
cessors are elected and qualified"
THE county government act of 1891
contained the same provision as to the
time when officers should enter upon
their offices. and contained also the
provision that all officers elected under
it should hold office until their success
sors are elected or appointed and uuali-
fed
I'VE think it clear that these subse-
quent acts repealed Sec. 4109 of the po-
litical code, as amended March Z. 1881,
though none Of them contained any pro-
vision expressly repeating that section.
Said Sec. 60 is a revision of said Sec.
41O9. 1t covers the same ground with
the exception of the clause defining how
the official year shall be computed, but
changes number of its provisions
I'VE think the rule was correctly
stated by the court below: Whenever it
clearly appears that the intention of
the legislature by the later acts is to
revise the entire subject matter of the
former, the subsequent act operates as
repeal Of the former. although it con-
tains no precise words to that effect
Appellant contends, however, that
other provisions of the county govern
ment act of 1891 are inconsistent with
and do not justify the conclusion of the
court below, and cites Sec 221 of that
act. That section was also incorporated
in the county government act of 1888
Sec. III of the county government act
of 1891 provided: All warrants issued
by the auditor during each year COM
first day of January, must be numbered
consecutively, and the number, date and
amount of each and the name of the
person to whom payable, and the pur-
pose for which drawn, must be stated
thereon
I'VE do not think these sections sus-
tain appellants construction Indeed,
under the statute fixing the commence
ment and termination of the terms of
county officers it can never happen that
the term consists of precisely two years,
1t being sometimes more and metimes
less; and therefore the provision fixing
the compensation at an annual sum
should be construed as fixing the rate
of compensation to be paid for the time
the officer actually serves. This con-
struction will do exact justice between
the preceding and succeeding officers.
and not increase the burden to be borne
by the people.
'The judgment appealed from should
be affirmed