Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1902-01-04
SEVERAL CASES DECIDED
Supreme Court Hands Down Decision
In a Number Of Interesting
Lawsuits.
Divorce Case Of Clopton VS.. Clopton
Affirmed, on Appeal from Order
Of Lower Court.
County Superintendent Wiles of McIn
tosh County Loses in Several
Cases Appealed.

The supreme court of the state has
handed down a number of interesting
decisions, among them that of the di-
vorce case of Clopton VS.. Clopton,
which has been Irrigated in several
stages of proceedings in district court,
William C. Clopton was a. wealthy New
York lawyer and clubman, who sued
for and obtained a divorce from Judge
Winchester in the district court at
Mandan. Later, upon affidavits from
the defendant in the case, that she had
never authorized any lawyer to repre-
sent her in the first case, and that the
divorce was obtained by fraud, the case
was reopened and an order made set
ting the decree aside. Following this
another order was made, setting aside
the vacation of the decree and re-estab-
fishing it as valid and binding. From
this order Mrs. Clopton appealed to the
supreme court. The papers filed in
the case involve a long list of salacious
details and there are numerous coun-
ter charges of bad faith on the part of
both plaintiff and defendant. The
supreme court sustains the lower court,
and affirms the order of the lower court
appealed from on legal grounds.
Another interesting case decided is
that Of George C. Wiles against McIn-
tosh county. Wiles sued the county
for a balance of 5000 claimed to be due
him as county superintendent of
schools. The county denied that any
balance was due the plaintiff and set
up a counterclaim of 500, which it
was claimed had been paid Wiles in
excess of the amount due him. The
salaries of county superintendent are
fixed according to the number of
schools in the county taught at least
three months in the preceding year,
and it was alleged that Wiles had
overstated the number to the board of
commissioners in fixing his salary. A
verdict was rendered in the district
court against Wiles, and upon the mo-
ton of his attorneys the court disal-
lowed the counterclaim of the county,
from which order the county appealed.
Wiles counsel claim the payments were
made voluntarily, and that even ii
overpayments made, could not
be recovered on that ground. The
supreme court does not take this view
OF the matter, and holds that the doc
trine of voluntary payments does not
apply to payments made from public
funds by agents of municipal corpora
lions, whose duties and powers are linn
tied and defined by law. The court
also construes the law with relation
to the computation OF salaries OF
county superintendent and holds that
the construction of the section is not
OF that doubtful character which would
warrant the courts in following a con-
trary Interpretation by the department
of public instruction, Wiles having
claimed that he was authorized to
make his computations by that depart
ment. The case is remanded back to
the district court for further proceed
ings
Another suit in which Wiles is con-
cerned is decided against him. This
is his case against the board of county
commissioners to compel them to pay
him the sum of $692, alleged to be due
him under the law for clerk hire, in
the office of county superintendent.
The law provides that the commits
sioners shall make an appropriation
for clerk hire where there are more
than sixty schools in the county. Wiles
alleged they refused to make the ap-
preparation, and he obtained a. writ of
mandamus from the district court to
compel them to pay him that sum
which he claimed to have paid out fo1
clerk hire because the commissioners
refused to do so. The supreme court
reverses the decision of the lower
court, on the ground that this appro.
priation is not to be paid to the sup
erintendent to be by him disbursed, blu,
to the clerks, and is to be disburse6
under the direction and audit of the
commissioners; and that if there is
any liability, it is to the clerks VIII
We're engaged and not to Wiles.
Wiles also sued out and obtained 6
peremptory writ of mandamus agains
the county auditor of Mcintosh count,
for the issuance of a warrant to hin
for salary, the amount of which wa.