Weekly independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 1887-1914, 1897-07-18
AK ECHO OF 1894.

The Office Specially Manufacture
ing Company TINT through the aid OF
a corrupt majority Of the board OF
Commissioners OF Elko county. we're
permitted to swiudle the county out
OF about $1,000 in 1894 ia having a
hard time collecting its bills from
Washoe county. The Wsshoe com
missioners played the same cru ked
dodge on the people that the Like
commissioners did, but were unable
TO get away with the swag AS auditor
Shearer vetoed all OF tie bills IN ex-
cess OF $500. and the company was
forced to go into the eonrts. mere IL
met with an adverse decision from
Judge cheney who held hat the con-
tract made with Washoe county was
fraudulent and made with intent to
eyade 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 Cheuey's decision on the de.
murrer to the compliant OF the COM
pany bears out the lSDEPEADENr's
criticisms OF the action OF III 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 so saturated
with fraud that no court would EN-
force it. The company Jared better
here because the auditor failed to do
his 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 so to the
INDEPENDENT as it denounced the
contract with the EIko commission
ers as illegal and Il fraud upon the
taxpayers. For this. its editor was
abused and threatened with personal
violence III the grand jury o when
before that body as a witness. Not.
withs+anding this abuse and the
threats Of it's enemies, the lSpErES-
DEST Eept up the fight and 10 has
the good fortune to have its 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 be promoted by enabling IL per-
son to 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. To
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 arse ont OF fraud
Courts OF Justice do not sit to ex-
tricate a rogue from the tolls; on the
contrary it Is the policy OF common
sense and common law to environ a
person with all possible perils and to
make it apparent that honesty is the
best policy.
The defense that the claim
sued on Wis not presented within the
time allowed by law is well taken.
This claim is either the same or d
different IN from what was first pre-.
sented. II it is the same, no action Can
be maintained on it because OF the
Illegally OF the contract. If it is q diff
ferent one, no action can be maintain
ed because it was not presented
within six months from the time the
goods were delivered or the time
when it became due and payable.
TIE demurrer as amended Is sus-
tained.-
The decision OF Judge Cheney
knocks the spots out O: the report Of
the grand jury that investigated the
purchase Of these metal boxes by the
Elko county commissioners. One is
based on law and justice and the
other is the product OF rank favorism.
based on a desire to pull somebody
out of Il very deep hole.