Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-10-27
My ]. D. sAEEN
WAS NONsU|TED.
,.u.d 10 Make Good His Charges
Against County Attorney
HuIaniskl.
,opNcILMAN PAINE REMOVED.
~,.,k Mattson May Face Per-
49, ~. charec--Funerai Of Heber
Gibbs.

81, nv Judge Howeii III 'ho el'e
'on'r sssen against Il. 7. Hulanski'
49, removal from Office on the GROUNDS round,
!, neglect Of duty, has caused oo,s'u
s,'' comment The courts decision
raO' "a naaes of typewritten data,
w ~ that the public may understand
~ a'',,.. position in the case, the fol-
~ q taken from the decision'
es s.',,n 81. of the Revised Statutes
80 1905 so far as material here,
.oS,des as follows .,
Fov,ueIh oard OF county commissioners
my consider any claims OF any
pal s-ainst the county :. unless
tisoa 's h. itenaized, giving names,
ne sam "A nartlcular service rendered.
ia.es, . a. Il has been passed upon by
he auditoI .,,oa as ,ol,o,ys.
sevSo ,a,ms against the county pre-
,ented BY members OK the poaru oi
'o"rry commissioners for expenses
INST "si bs itemised and verified as other
.lsms and must state that the service
sss been actually rendered. and before
.Iouance such claims must be present.
~ he county attorney, who must en-
,arss thereon. In writing, his opinion as
,bs legality thereof If the county
.,,ornsv declare the claim Illegal. he
,nst state specifically wherein II Is IL
bal. and the claim must then be re-
. jscted BY said board"
The net result of these statutes, when
construed together, Is that the county
auditor must audit, that Is, investigate
M correstness OF all claims. includ-
M The claims OF county commissioners,
hnt A to the latter the county attorney
must certify 20 their legality. The re-
speetiye duties OF the auditor and coun-
" attorney as to the claims Of county
commissioners must therefore not be
vrfused. II is no less the duty Of the
Yunty auditor to investigate claims of
M county commissioners that 1t Is his
lry to investigate other claims. On
NJ contrary, as TO such claims, the
rmty attorney Is not constituted the
lsllor, and the latter's duties as to
vi claims are not imposed upon him.
ls1nlDg that the claim of the county
Jsnissioners has been or will be in
Ntgated by the auditor, and found
~ De correct he simply certifies to its
bxfuness. He II under no duty to in
'esigate the correctness Of such claims
nd therefore no neglect OF duty can
be predcated upon his failure to do so.
He must see that the total OF such
claims on tho part Of any commissioner
In one year does not exceed the sum
Of 800. and OF course II he has actual
knowledge that the claim IN false, he
must not attach his certificate, because
DO would then know ii Is not a legal
Calm Such indeed, seems to be the
view taken by the plaintiff and his
counsel FOR he did not content himself
with the allegation Of failure to in
vesugate but he charged actual
knowledge Of the falsity Of the claim.
Beng under the necessity OF so alleging,
ne must prove lt-and that beyond a.
reasonable doubt.
Assuming, as the court does, the truth
~ Nt Mattson's testimony, does Il con-
sutnte such proof OF the falslty OF this
cam as would justify the case being
submitted TO the jury? Obviously not.
,of Mr. Mattson expressly stated that
ne dld not know OF their falsty HIM
yen ana he could therefore convey no
sucn knowledge to the county, attorney.
lne most that can be ella med for his
.ssumony Is that he made the county
suorney acquainted with the fact that
vas suspicious Of these aims, but
'spicioh is not knowledge. and being
uaaer no duty to investigate, the county
suorney was acting clearly within his
,snS When he certified TO their Iegali-
"
dnousn II Is not alleged IN these
,.l,, mat the claims We're improp-
nenllzea, such a charge Is made az
" vn.sr claims. but II seems to the
, " y, ,llat they were itemized sufficient
" !" eomply with the statute,
" also claimed that some OF these
Naulls were paid without being audited.
w. no reliance is placed upon that con,
crcysd =, "a Ine complaint and no proof is
had trav sno" mat the county attorney
con,,s apparent, of course, that IN the
M A., attorney was not neglectful OF
be IL . AVN. IN certifying to these claims.
hi - not guilty OF such neglect In fall
an ac,tl pklse their payment, or to bring
far hui 70 recover back the money
,lloSne Is no evidence that after the
nnplraSe OF payment OF the claims he
hat ~ any additional knowledge Ia
I'M ~. a,ihed ia have been conveyed IN
~ oy Mr.. Mattson. W ~
,as ailesation that the claim of s97a
,rona w. properly itemized is not onlv
n r,.y pleaded, but II Is snatairnd
a', s proof, the claim itself shows
ouss y should not have been nj.
ona..V w The board Of county commits.
i'm On mat account, but the oues-
oun,v y, not whether the board of
owed 4, N9ulihissioners should have nj
ev a. out whether the county attor-
va mueh ne was told OF It's navnnent
All, iater, should have brought
oth,n. recover IL back. There "a
e,, ~ 10 SHOW that the county at,or-
nope NV Knew, or now knows. that Tho
,,re,,y was not actually expended ana
ut sor,a 'nou, such knowledge, with
ase. he e.iuence that such was the
b brin,4M ould not have been Justified
honey ba an action TO recover the
las no, .A, simply because the claim
nacted seniizeu' This statute was
ecover no, 10 enable the county 10
aid h, n1ack money which has been
0rms sue county, simply because the
NJ IN Jaw have not been followed
cen eeover back money which has
he co,,,ongiuily paid by the officers 81
In hssS even when the forms Of
Tho g,, ueen most rigidly followed.
nprn,S. 'er allegations. that II was an
nd ,P charge against the county,
iola,t~al inc allowance was In direct
Dsn nv. OF the law, Of course are
msior allegations, being mere con-