The Coeur d'Alene press. (Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) 1892-1907, 1901-06-15
THE PEAsE SALARY CASE DECIDED
supreme Coar: Hands Down an Opinion
In Favor Of The County.

supreme coar: Hands Down an Opinion
in Favor Of the County.
The supreme eunrt has affirmed tie
4 Judgement OF The district court in the
case Of George II. Pease and wife vs..
Kootenai county. when sheriff OF the
county Pease was defaulter and the
county held back sI,53304 due him,
when he went out Of Office and became
fugitive from justice His wife sued
for the amount and received a Judge
mcnt by default, which WAS afterward
set aside on motion Of the county at
toTney. who claimed that the wife could
not sue for salary due her husband
while acting as county officer. The
plaintiff appealed from the decision OF
the judge setting aside the judgement
and the supreme court now afirns tie
decision Of Judge Mayhem. The opin
ion is by Justice Siockslager. eoncurred
In by Chief Justice Qaarles aud Justice
sullivan. as follows:
THAT the trial court is clothed with
large discretionary powers in cases OF
the character before as for review is
not coutroverted 10y counsel Tor appel
lants, and II is only where il is plainly
apparent from the record that the court
has abused this discretion that the APP
pellaut court will disturb the action Of
the lower court.
"The notice serv I'd upon counsel for
appellents says the motion to set aside
the judgement will be made upon the
pIeadings, Giles, etc, in the case, together
with the affidavit Of John d. Goode.
county attorney OF defendant county.
"The record shows that on the hear
ing of said motion the entire record was
considered by the court lit occurred
TO the learned judge that the complaint
did not state cause OF action las we
presume it did against The defendant
and that the demurrer then on Gle
would have 10 be sustained, or il filed
n time would have been sustained. and
no Judgment entered il favor Of the
plaintiffs can be contended that lie
labuSed his deScretiong We think the
Discretionary power granted him is for
the purpose Of seeing that all parties
have equal and exact justice 1t is not
for this court 10 say whether the com.
plaint was sufficient or not, but it was
part OF The duty Of the trial court on
this motion 10 take the suflciency of
the complaint into consideration, and
if he believed it insufficient to warrant
a recovery, it was his duty and undoubt.
esily he did consider it in passing upon
the motion.
Judgments OF the character of the
one under consideration are entered up
by the clerk, the judge Of the court
knowing nothing Of the pleadings or
facts, unless called 10 his attention by a
motion to vacate the judgement, or
some other pleading striking at the
validity Of the judgement. IL there
are any class Of cases in which the trial
court should not be hampered in the
exercise Of its discretion It is the kind
under consideration.
Counsel urges that there was no
affidavit Of merits illcd aud no answer
showing a meritorious defense was iled
or offered to be tlled.' lie does not call
our attention to statutory provision
requiring either aud there>is no merit
in this contention. IL the complaint
does not state cause Of action de
murrer is sufficient and what the con
illusions of the trial court were on the
question when this motion Was before
it we are not informed. lie next says
mo imposition Of terms was made 10y
the court as condition precedent to
setting aside said Judgment as required
by statute, This was also discretion
AIRY with the court