The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1905-10-14
JUDGE PARSONS
DECISION
CConrnued from page one).

legged employment refused to recognize
him as his clerk, but sent to the Board
of Supervisors the name of Brickwood
Lyman as his choice for the position,
which nomination the Board of Super
ors refused to confirm.
on or about the 18th day of August,
1905, the Petitioner presented to Charles
Mcguire, as Auditor of the County Of
Hawaii, a written demand for $500 al
legged to be due the Petitioner as his
salary for the month of July as clerk to
the Sheriff of Hawaii, w. A. Fetter
Deputy Sheriff of South Hilo, having
certified to the faithful performance of
Lyman's services; and the demand, be-
fore presentation to the Auditor hay
ing been presented to the clerk, APP
countersigned by John T. Moir, chair
man of said Board, and attested by $.
K. Pua, Clerk of the County of Hawaii.
Upon such presentation the Petitioner
demanded that the Auditor issue to him
a warrant for $75 upon the Treasurer of
the County of Hawaii i'm accordance
with his claim. This demand the Au-
ditor refused. Whereupon Petitioner
brought mandamus proceedings to COM
pei the issuance of such a warrant b!
the Auditor.
Petitioner contends that power of ap-
pointment of a Clerk to the Sheriff of
Hawaii is conferred upon the Board of
Supervisors by Subdivision 2 of Sec.
81 of Act 80 of the Session Laws of 1905,
which provides that such Supervisors
shall have power ito appoint such sub
ordinate officers as they may deem nee
essary for the public service and
claims that under this power he was du-
ly appointed to said position.
Respondent denies the right of the
Supervisors to make such appointment
and claims that it is his right to refuse
to recognize their attempted appoint
ment Of Petitioner,
Section 1OOa of the County Act pro-
vides: ANY County officer may, with
the approval of the Board of Supervis-
sistants as may be necessary to aid him
ors, employ such clerks and other as
in the performance of the duties of his
office, and may, without such approval
remove the same"
This section clearly confers upon The
Sheriff the right to appoint his owr
clerk subject only to the approval Of
the Board OF Supervisors, and this righ
is in no way affected by the right of the
Supervisors ito appoint such subordin
ate officers as they may deem necessary
for the public service" The latte
clause confers upon the Supervisor!
power to make appointment only II
those instances where the right of ap
pointment, or election, is not specifical
ly conferred upon others. Section
provides for the election Of deput.
sheriffs. Section 10 provides for tn
appointment (subject to the approva
of the Board of Supervisory of a dep
uty to each Of the following officers
namely; the Clerk, Auditor, Treasure
and County Attorney To sustain Petl
TONERS contention, in effect, would b
to hold that the County Act has confer
red upon the Supervisors the right t
, nullify the provisions Of Section 10 an
, Section 110a.
J Whether or not 1t is within the pOwe
! of the Supervisors to appropriate mon
! ey to pay for special services rendere
= any county officer without the conser
! or approval of such officer need nc
) here be considered. In this instanC
) they do not pretend that the appropra
/ ton was made for such purpose. A
- inspection of the voucher shows thu
the claim was for salary as Clerk
the Sheriff.
find that the Auditor was justihe