The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-08-03
NO EXTRAS FOR
CITY COUNC|LMEN
Must Be Satisfied With Lump
Salary Fixed By
Statute.
SUPREME COURT PASSES
ON TWO OGDEN CASES
Opinions Are Against COnten-
tiOns Of Defendants On
All Points.

According to opinions handed down
by the Supreme court, Thursday, in
the cases of the two Ogden City Coun-
cilmen, members of City Councils are
only entitled TO collect the salary pre-
scribed for the Office by law and any
collection Of fees for other alleged pub
lie services performed is held rs being
illegal md Just cause for the removal
from Office of the offending officer.
The cases involved are those of j.,
ID. Skeen, respondent, VS.. Fred W..
Chambers, appellant, and j. D. Skeen,
appellant, VS.. William Craig, re-
spondent.
History of Gases.
Craig and Chambers were members
of the Ogden City council and j, D..
Skeon filed an action against them in
the District court Of Weber county
charging thcm with collecting illegal
fees for services rendered and pre-
tended to have been rendered by them
in the said offices of City Councilmen.
The direct accusation was that they
had charged the city for services on
the Board Of Equalization and Re-
view OF special taxes and had caused
a resolution TO be passed by the City
Council allowing the remuneration and
afterward caused warrants TO be Is
sued in their favor for the amounts col
lected to their own personal use.
Chambers Found Guilty,
The action against Chambers was
fled first and the case was tried be-
fore Jury, which returned verdict
in favor of the plaintiff, the court rem
dering a decision in accordance with
the verdict The Office that Chambers
torneys for Chambers filed a motion for
new trial, but this was denied by the
District court and the case was ap-
pealed to the Supreme court, which
now afirms the judgment of the lower
court and taxes the cost OF the appeal
against the defendant.
The action against Craig, which was
identically the same as that against
Chambers, was filed at the conclusion
Of the Chambers hearing. Tho jury in
this case returned verdict in favor
pealed to the Supreme court by the
plaintiff, Skeen. The Supreme court
reverses the judgment of the lower
court and directs that a new trial be
granted taxing the cost of the appeal
against the responder.
Jurisdiction Challenged.
In the case of Craig the attorneys for
the respondent challenged the jurisdlc-
tion of the Supreme court to hear the
appeal on the ground that the action
was q criminal one. The Supreme court
holds, however, that the action is a
civil one and that it is within it g
jurisdiction in hearing the appeal.
The Supreme court holds that Sec
tion 1880 of the Revised Statutes, un'
der which section the actions were
brought, does not limit or restrict its
scope or operation to any one class
Of officers; that by its very terms the
statute includes any officer not liable
to impeachment, who has been guilty
of charging and collecting alleged fees;
that to bring the charging and collect
ing of illegal fees within the statute
obtained from any specific source OF
sources. Nor that they be charged anG
collected by an officer who is autho
rized by law to collect fees for specific
services. The Supreme court further
holds that the charging and collecting
Of illegal fees from the State, county
or municipality, by a public officer fol
private gain, is as clearly within thu
statute as the charging and collecting
Of illegal fees from private indi
vidual.