Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1908-02-22

as being set aside by the said ch. 112
of the L. of 1905, and as substituting
in lieu Of the said sum Of $500 there
tofore available the sum of $1,000,
which Is apparently a proper inter-
pretation.
5. Under the act Of the legislative
assembly, ch. 112, l.. of 1905, the fol-
lowing amounts were got In to the
fund; for the 56th fiscal year 81, 1,14S.07;
for the 57th fiscal year $1,000; and
for the 5Sth fiscal year 1928, up to
the time that the petition in this
case was filed, for since that time no
question has arisen upon the pleading
or the testimony as to the disbursal
of the balance of the fund for the
5Sth fiscal year, that balance being
sS72. The plaintiff consequently has
to account for $2,67607.
6. Take from the said sum OF
$2,676.O7 the $S37.7O, which | find in
his favor, and there remains as a
charge against the plaintiff for the
period of q IL months in controver.
sy, subject to the determination of
the other questions involved the sum
of $1,S3S.37
7. The plaintiff makes claim for
typewriting done by him personally,
for the period in question, at the
rate of $50 per month, or $l,375.
The monthly charge according to
the testimony is reasonable. 1t is
probable that such amount for the
services rendered could properly have
been paid out of the appropriate con.
tingent fund to a third person en-
ployed for the work, but whether it
Is proper credit In favor Of the
plaintiff raises legal question, which
| do not understand to be within my
province, and therefore refer it to
the court for decision.
The evidence shows that other Off
GERS of the Territory, having similar
contingent funds at their disposal
employed stenographers and type
writer's and others, on occasion, to
render services similar to those which
the plaintiff in this case did for him.
self, and paid the wages or compen.
sation of the persons thus employed
out OF the contingent funds provided
for their Offices.
But whether the course of conduct
OF other territorial officers in like
cases is factor to be relied on by
the plaintiff is a matter for judicial
adjudication.
s. The plaintiff claims for compil-
ing the auditors report to the 36th
legislative assembly for the years
1908 and 1904, the sum of 5000.
Under Section 2591, C. l.. 1897, 1t
is the duty of the auditor of public
accounts to report to the legislative
assembly at the commencement of
each regular session a full and de.
tailed statement of the revenues and
expenditures for the preceding year."
but the custom seems to have grown
up for the auditor to cover in such re-
port the two previous years, although
the warrant of the statute does not
go so far. Thus the work so done by
the plaintiff was not strictly encum-
bent upon him, unless it may be said
that by acquiescence the legislature
authorized or permitted it. Hence an.
other legal question arises for the
courts consideration rather than for
mine.
The same position obtains with
reference to the compensation claim.
ed for a like report to the 37th legis.
lative assembly for the years 1905 and
1906, and it is likewise referred to
the court to pass upon.
9. The plaintiff claims compensa.
tion for compiling the auditors report
to the governor for the years 1906 and
1906, two separate items, at $50 each,
in the sum total of $16O. This is anoth.
er matter of law for the court to re.
solve
10. In order to aid the court in
reaching a conclusion, I desire to an.
alyze the evidence briefly. 1t would
seem from the evidence, as general
proposition that other officers having
contingent funds similar to that In
(question treated them, with some ex.
Iceptions, as personal appropriations or
donations, subject to the resting up.
on the officers Of providing therefrom,
for their respective Offices such sup.
plies, making such outlays and meet.
l ing such contingencies as the law ap.
Iparently contemplated, and holding
the residue, If any, to the use Of the
officer. 1t is the theory of the plain.
| tiff's case that the construction which
departmental officers put upon the
istatute, with the Interpretation Of
which they are charged, is effective in
determining the meaning and purpose
lof the statute-a conclusion, however,
with which l have nothing to do. The
evidence shows that it was the plain.
tiff's understanding that, In this mat.
tier, his right to whatever remained af.
tier he met the necessary contingent
! expenses Of his Office was clearly dis.
closed, In the following manners: !:
m - L 4. e.