Williams news., 1905-07-01
BONDS OF COUNTY OFFICERS Found to Be Defective Are Being
 Put in Proper Form

District Attorney IT. F. Ashurst recently received instructions from Public Examiner w. c. Foster to examine all the bonds of the county officials as to their form and valid ity. MT. Ashurst immediately upon examining the bonds found that several were defective and wrote each official instructing him to pro cure new bond made out in proper form, which is being done. Fol lowing is the report of Mir. Ash urst to the board of supervisors on the status of the bonds:
 In the Bond of Thomas Devine,
 Treasurer and ex-Officio Tax
 Collector:
 This bond is defective, for the reason that in the conditions of the bond the principal and the sureties thereon obligate themselves for the faithful performance, by the said principal, of the duties of the office of tax collector, and they fail there in to obligate themselves for the faithful performance, by the said principal, of the duties of the office of treasurer.
 Paragraph 1O52, Title 14, R. s. of A., 1901, provides that: "rhe county treasurer of each county shall be ex-officio tax collector of that county"
 Paragraph 1068, Title IA. R. s. of A., 1901, in dealing with the subject of official bonds of county officers, among other things, pro- vides that: County officials must execute official bonds in the fol lowing amounts treasurer and ex-otiicio tax collector twenty five thousand dollars, or such great CT sum as the supervisors may fix ...:." and in this instance the bond has been fixed by the board of supervisors at larger sum than twenty five thousand dollars.
 A perusal of the above paragraph clearly shows that, in this territory, the office of tax collector is an ex- officio office and is inseparately at- tached to the office of county treas urer, and that any bond guaran- teeing the faithful performance of the duties of the office of tax col. lector, primarily and of necessity, must also guarantee the faithful perfoi nance of the duties of the office of treasurer.
 While the two offices, by law, de- volve upon one and the same per son, it may follow that the incum- bent of said two offices may, in re- spect to one, we'll and faithfully perform the duties thereof, but in respect to the other, may be very remiss in the performance of the duties
 Further, one of the sureties on said bond is county official, which is contrary to the spirit of Para  graph 235, Title 1, R. s. of A., 1901. In re Bond of John o. Harrington,
 Justice of the Peace, Flagstaff
 Precinct:
 This bond does not substantially conform- to Paragraph 234, Title 1, R. s. of Aii 1901, in this: It simply guarantees the faithful performance of the duties of that office "accord- ing to law" which is not sufficient according to said paragraph and the justification of sureties does not recite that the sureties are either freeholders or householders and does not fecite that each of said sureties is worth the amount for which he becomes surety Tn unin- cumbered property situated within this territory.
 In re Bond of F.. E. Ball, County
 Surveyor:
 In this bond it appears that one of the sureties has qualified in the sum of five hundred dollars when such surety should have qualified in the sum of one thousand dollars