Amador ledger., 1909-10-29
City Printing
IniuCtion Case.

The Injunction suit OF r. Webb, |
against c. L. Culbert as city treasurer,
to restrain him from paying a warrant OF
over sl4 in favor of W. M. Penry jr
for the Amador Dispatch on account OF
printing and advertising for the city,
was heard in the superior court on Mon
day. The restraining order was
asked on the ground that w. M. Penry,
sen. was city trustee, and as proprie-
tor and publisher of the Amador Dis
patch was an interested party in the
printing contract. The law says no city
trustee shall be interested, directly or
indirectly in any contract with the city.
The whole case hinged on the question
of self interest. W. G. Snyder repre-
sented the plaintiff, and r. c.. Bole the
defendant.
The answer interposed by defendant
was to the effect that trustee W. M.
Penry was interested only to the extent
that he was the owner of the premises
occupied by the Dispatch, and also of
the printing plant and as any en-
ployee, but that he was in no way in
tersted in the printing contract with the
city.
The plaintiffs side of the case was
dependent largely upon the testimony of
unwilling witnesses and statements made
in the Dispatch 1t was brought out
that at the time the city was incor
porated, and when w. M. Penry became
trustee, he was the proprietor, pub
Usher and editor of the Dispatch. The
city was Incorporated in December,
1905 The last issue in the Dispatch of
that month contained an announcement
that w. M. Penny had retired from the
editorial and business management, and
that thereafter his son W. M. Penry jr.
would assume charge. This was done
while the advertisement calling for bids
for doing the city printing was being or
about to be published. copy of the
Amador Dispatch was introduced show
ing thereafter the paper was issued with
the name of w. M. Penry as publisher,
and proprietor, with the name of Penry
jr. as editor ouly In no part of the
paper does Penny jr. appear as proprie-
tor or publisher 1t was admitted that
every issue of the Dispatch represented
the parties in these respective positions.
The contention of plaintiffs was that
being not only proprietor of the printing
plant, but also publisher of the paper
doing the city advertising, he came
within the rule of law barring officials
from being interested in any contract.
In explanation of this situation W.
M. Penry in defense testified, he leased
or rented the business to his son in
January, 1906, and since that time all
bills have been payable to the lessee; it
was merely a verbal agreement, terni-
nable at the option of either party. He
received $50 per month for the rent of
the building and printing plant, and $50
per month for his services as employe,
in working at binding, press work or
other work that he fell like doing.
This was fixed rent and compensation,
no matter whether the income was large
or small. If the paper did not earn it,
he supposed his son would owe it to-
him. He further explained that that
portion of the paper in which his name
appeared as proprietor and publisher
was printed in San Francisco-patent
inside. He had never asked that it be
changed. 1t continued" to appear the
same as before the agreement with his
son to take the business end of the con-
Germ was made. If his son should throw
up the lease at any time the paper
would fall back into his hands. until
such time as he could make other ar
rangements. He did not remember of
discussing with his son the matter of
bidding for city printing did not know
what his bid was until ii was opened in
the board meeting. He did not vote on
the proposition of awarding the contract
The matter was ordered submitted on
briefs, the court however inumating
that the evidence was hardly sufficient to
warrant an injunction.