Elk City mining news. (Elk City, Idaho) 1903-1913, 1904-10-22
THE MAXWELL CASE
Ought to be Griff1th's Political
Headstone,

Maxwell suit against the county
to recover money for services
rendered, that Maxwell fought a
draw. 1t will be recalled that
Ike submitted bill for $675 Tor
personal services, team hire,
powder, feed, etc. This bill, on
the advice Of County Attorney
E. M. Griffith it, is said, was re-
jected in it's entirety. The reason
alleged at that time is given in
."Orders of the board of county
commissioners Jan. Il, 1904, book
7, page 155, and reads: The
claim of I. D. Maxwell, Of road
district 20 for labor on roads
was examined, considered and re-
iected for the following reasons:
First, that it appears to the board
that the services alleged to have
been performed were not abso-
lutely necessary to keep the roads
in said district in passable condi-
ton. Second, that said claims
are too indefnate and uncertain
in this, that they do not itemize
wherein said services were per-
formed, nor do they state that
the same were absolutely neces-
sary to keep the roads in good re-
pair and in passible condition.
Third, that the same are not a
legal charge against Idaho coun-
ty."
1t will be recalled by the read
ers of this paper that the MINING
NEWS of March 18th pointed out
the puerility of these reasons"
realizing, from these structures,
that they were in an untenable
position these good men promptly
took new ground, and Mr.. Crit
fifth sought the shyster's refuge
in law technicalities; and set up
the following defence, thereby
admitting in equity the justice of
MaxwelPs claim. But true to the
shyster's instincts, invoked the
aid of an obsolete technicality to
rob him Of the fruits of his labor.
Below is a copy of Mr.. Crit
fth's new position, by courtesy
called opinion:
''It appears from the commits
sioners' record that the said over
seer was appointed to fill a va
cancy in said district during the
month to-wit: April IA, 1903, but
that the said overseer did not file
his bond until the oath day of
July, 1903, and that in my opin-
ion he was not a duly qualified
overseer during the greater part
of the month of July, or until he
filed his bond and the same was
approved by the board of com.
missioners, as provided in Sec.
1899 of the Pol. code, and for the
further reason that he failed tt
subscribe the usual oath Of office
as provided in said section, anC
that by reason of the foregoing
said overseer was not provided
with the necessary receipts apC
blanks, etc., as well as the orders
of the board of commissioners
Heretofore adopted by said boarC
relative to instructions to over
seers in road districts. That tn,
greater part of said MAXWELL
claim was incurred prior to hi
becoming a duly qualified roa,
overseer.
THAT the said |. D. Maxwell
after qualifying for said office
failed to comply with the statute
relative to giving notice to pei
sons liable for road-poll tax in hi
district, and that he failed t
furnish to the clerk of the boar
of county commissioners With
twenty days after his qualifyin
for said office, a list of person
liable for poll tax in his distriC
as provided in Sec. HOB of tn
Pol. code, R. S. Sec. 881, and thu
he has in various instances faile