The record-union., 1898-10-26
INTERESTING LEGAL COMBAT
ARE THE SHERIFF AND TAX
COLLECTOR ONE?
B. N. Bugbey's Petition Argued in
Judge Johnson's Court-A
Decision To-Day.

Judge Johnson's court was occupied
all of yesterday afternoon in the near
ing Of arguments in the matter of the
petition of B. N. Bugbey for an order
of court requiring the County Clerk TO
insert his name in the official ballot as
the silver Republican candidate FOR
Tax Collector. The case was not con-
Guided, and will be resumed this morn
ing.
As heretofore stated, Bugbey claims
that the offices of Sheriff and Tax Col
lector are distinct and separate, ana
that he is the only candidate nominal
ed for the latter position. The petl-
toner was represented IN court ny
Chauncey H Dunn, County Clerk HAM
ilton by Deputy District Attorney ).
Charles Jones; Frank T. Johnson IKE
publican candidate for Sheriff and TAX
Collector) by w. H. Devlin, and }. M.
Morrison fusion candidate) by Hiram
W. Johnson.
Demurrers were interposed to the Pc
tition by the respondents on the ground
that the petition did not show sufflcleht
cause for the action asked of the court.
also that the court had no jurisdiction
the proper remedy, if any, lying in
Supervisors to include the office of Tax
Collector in its election proclamation,
etc.
Mr. Dunn opened his argument by
saying that the proceeding was brought
eminent Act This section provides
that whenever it shall appear that
omissions or errors have been made Tin
Of off oil ha11o n
the names, descriptions or designations
of candidates, it shall be the duty of
the Superior Court, on proper applica-
ton being made thereto, to order such
error or omission corrected.
Mr. Dunn held that the offices of
Sheriff and Tax Collector are separate
offices, having never been legally con-
solidated He quoted from the codes
to show that the office of Tax Collec-
tor is separate from that of Sheriff,
but that the Supervisors are empowered
to consolidate certain offices, including
those of Sheriff and Tax Collector. Of
such consolidation, however, he had
been unable to find any proper record.
In the record of the Supervisors for
September 1, 1884. appears the adop
ton of a resolution attempting to con-
contended that the attempt was not
carried out as contemplated by law.
Deputy District Attorney ]. Charles
Jones, representing the County Clerk,
argued that the court had no jurisdic-
ton of the matters involved in the pc
tition, the remedy being by mandamus
on the Board of Supervisors. Mr.. Jones
quoted from decisions of the Supreme
10 CHI hot of
dation could be made complete by the
Supervisors without the passage of an
Ordinance" and the publication of the
same Counsel contended that in the
matter at issue the making of an order
by the Supervisors was sufficient
Mr.. Devlin, on behalf of Sheriff John
son, held that the provision of the
County Government Act under which
the present action was brought has ap-
plication only to the matter of correct
ing errors in the names of candidates
and that it has no reference to matters
like that under dispute. When the bal
lot is prepared by the County Clerk, and
errors occur therein, it would be proper
TO petition the court to require the Clerk
TO correct the same.
In this case, said Mr.. Devlin, the at
tempt is made to have the court require
the Clerk to place on the ticket the
name of a candidate for an office not
embraced in the election proclamation.
The only way TO proceed in a matter
of this kind would be to apply for a
writ of mandate to require the Board
of Supervisors to issue in it's call an
order for the election Of a Tax Collec-
tor as an officer separate from any
other
The County Clerk, contended Mr..
Devlin. has no authority and can have
no authority except under the order of
the Supervisors. to place in the election
proclamation anything not embraced in
the regular call He can only correct
errors in the names or descriptions
Of candidates. 1t is the province of the
Board of Supervisors alone to declare
what offices are to be filed
The argument was continued pro and
con until the close of the afternoon ses-
sion the court frequently taking hand
and debating points with counsel Judge
Johnson seemed inclined to the belief
that, although the offices of Sheriff and
Tax Collector in Sacramento County
were consolidated by Act of the Iegis-
lature in 1877, the County Government
Act of more recent date repealed that
of 1871 as it designates the offices OF
Sheriff and Tax Collector as separate
and distinct unless consolidated by the
Supervisors.
This point was combatted by coun-
sci for the respondents, who held that
the Act of 1877 consolidating the two
Offices was final. the County Govern
ment Act applying only to counties In
which the offices had not been pre-
viously consolidated by the Legislature
It is expected that Judge Johnson viii
be prepared to render his decision to.
day.
Fruit Shipments.