The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1900-06-02
The He TElAsffLOR CASE
The Supreme Court Holds That the
County Must Pay the Deputy
The Commissioners Responsible
They Found the Necessity
and Fixed the SALARY.

siley found the Necessity
and Fixed the Salary.
The supreme Court has Just
handed down a decision in the case
of ex-Sherif w H. Taylor vs..
Canyon county, reversing the Dis
t a court. The following extracts
are made from the decision.
This action was brought BY the
appellant, the sheriff Of Canyon
county, to recover from said county
$500 alleged 70 be due him for dep
uty hire for the year 1897. It'll is
alleged in the second amended com
plant that on application Of appel
lant, as as, sheriff. ofsaid county, to
the board Of county commissioners
of.said county and after their hear
ing the evideuce therein, found that
a necessity existed. for a deputy and
said application was granted and
the salary of such deputy was fixed
by said board at SIS per month.
That under such authority a deputy
was employed. and served, in said
capacity for months and 26 days,
and that such service at the rate of:
SIS per month amounted to $500,
which sum said sheriff had paid to
said deputy and thereafter fled his
claim against the county for the
same (inc1uding therein $3.50 more.
than that sum, which is fully ex-
planned in the complaint and it no.
wise effects the questions involved
in this case). The board disa1low-.
ed said claim on the ground that it
was charge against the county.
Thereupon this suit was brought.
A demurrer was filed to the second
amendment complaint on the
ground that it did not state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of
action, which demurrer was sus-
tanned by the court. Plaintiff re-
fused to further plead and judgment
for dismissal and for costs was en-
tered against him. This appeal is
from the Judgment. * * x
And after careful investigation
and consideration Of this matter, we
conclude that it was intended when
the sheriff, auditor, recorder or
clerk required a deputy and on
proper application to the board of
COuhty. commissioners it is found
that the business of the office re-
quired deputy and the board EN-
powers the officers to employ one
and fix his salary, the salary so
fixed is charge against the county.
The board in empowering the EN-
ploy1nent of a deputy Should have
had in mind that the intention of
the trainers of the Constitution was
to make such Offices self-sustaining
as nearly as possible and the in
come of the Office was a good index
of the necessity of a deputy and
should have been carefully consid.
cred by the board on said applica-
ton. ~ ~
| "Where the income of the. Office
was less than the minimum or ever
slightly above, no deputy should
have been allowed, except at the
expense of the officer, unless some
very cogent reason was showr
therefor. With the liberal fees al
lowed by law, II the income OF the
officer does not amount to the min
imum the officer. certainly has no
been overWorked: ..>-.,.':
"The necessity of each case mus
rest on its own facts, and the boarc
of county commissioners should b
ever mindful of the interest. of, tn
taxpayer as well as that of the off
Ger in passing upon the necessit,
for the employment of a deputy.
: The board of county commits
} sioners in passing upon the CLAIM
involved in this case evidently cor
Guided that the deputy's salary wa
not county charge unless the off
car turned fees sufficient into til