The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1906-02-17

Counsel IOF DOM sizes IN LliG case VI D.
D. Skeen against Fred W. Chambers,
president Of the Ogden city council, in
which the latter. is accused of voting to
misappropriate funds Of the city for the
personal use of the councilmen, became
Qver-ZealOus during the proceedings yes
terday, which brought from Judge How
ell a warning To the effect that a Tepe-
tition would mean a fine for contempt Of
court. Attorney H r. Macmillan made
the statement in referring to the inaCcUr-
acy of the city's books, that il became
necessary every once in a while to have
a. special auditor appointed to audit the
books District Attorney HalversOn sup
pfemented tnis with the remark TO find
out who is doing the stealing" Mr.. Mac
MILAN at once took issue with the district
attorney and said that II appeared to him
that Mr.. HalversOn was trying to make
of himself a hero and endeaVOring TO
play the Jerome role in Ogden. The dis
trict attorney rose to reply when Judge
Howell called halt and ordered Mr.. Hal
version to take his seat The court then
Informed counsel that the remarks Of
both were improper and that a repetition
would me a fine for contempt Of court
This had the desired effect and immedi-
ately thereafter, the storm which came
up so suddenly, subsidized and the work Of
taking testimony in the case was reSuIN ed.
For the first time counsel for the de-
IenSe- scored a point yesterday, when
Judge Howell handed down a decision on
the question or whether OF not an Objec-
ton on the ground that it is immaterial
incompetent and irrelevant should be sus-
tanned to the following question submitted
by counsel for the defendant: Now
then, these boards of equalization, do you
know whether or not il was true that il
was customary among the members of
the city council when K was impossible
or inconvenient for one member to serve
upon the board, that his place was taken
by some other member of the cOuncil?'
W ME the court oyerTdled the motion 1t
held that corrupt intent must be shown
il the case.
Argued Whole Day on Question.
For one whole day this question was
argued by the counsel of both sides and
the arguments on both sides took a wider
range The whole question as to whether
or not the charging and collecting illegal
ices by public officer under any and
ali circumstances must necessarily result
In his removal from office when proceed
tngs are brought against him. prospect
I've of his good or bad faith, of his honest
or corrupt intent The court held that,
''inasmuch as this question must be de-
termined at some stage Of the proceedings
this was perhaps as oppOrtune a time as
any to pass upon ii. although the particu-
lar question asked the witness and which
had given rise TO the discussion, was but
preliminary and even if answered in the
affirmative would have to be followed up
with other evidence in order to constitute
defense under any theory Of the case "
Continuing tn court said.
This court has already held in this case
city by a city councilman OF compensation
beyond that fixed by ordinance for ser
vices rendered as such councilman is an
Illegal fee within the meaning of the stat
ute here in question, but the court ex-
pressly reserves the question as to what
was necessary to render him guilty of so
doing in such a manner as to entitIe a
private person to have him removed from
office In deciding this latter question
that is, as to the meaning Of the word
guilty as used in this statute. the court
81 no n H.
that were followed in determining the sig
MITIGATION Of the word fees.
TT seems a little strange that counsel
Should 50 admire one branch Of the ca Sc
and so disapprOve Of the other The Tea-
son they give, however. why it should be
followed as to the construction Of the
word Zee. in the statute and not as 70
the word guilty Is that. as they contend.
our own court had, previous to the adOp-
ton Of section $3.50 already fixed the
meaning of that word, and therefore,
when the legislature used II in this stat
ute II must be presumed to have intended
that it would have the same Specification
ascribed to 1t by the supreme court, and
undoubtedly II their contention be cor
rect, there IS much force in the argu-
ment
Distinction Made by Courts.
There is A distinction made. however.
by some OF the courts. in the cases even
on the construction Of the statute max
ing it q misdemeanOT to charge illegal
AEEor NllEAE TIC 4AEtDAilA u AltL SpECiLl-
cally fixed by statute. and such dis
tinctiOn is Of some aid in constituting
this statute, because, although the stat
ute and ordinance fix specifically the
salaries of COuncilmen. there is no stat
ute detailing with absolute particularly
the duties Of cOunCilmen, and while the
court has held that the serving on boards
of equalization Of special taxes is a
duty imposed upon a councilman by vir-
tue of his office, and for which service
he is entitled to no additional COmpen-
satiOn, stiH the question is not so alb
solutely free from doubt as in the case
whore an officer charges a fee which
- In excess of that fixed by statute foI
a particular service.
Much argument was also INDUCED in