Decorah public opinion. (Decorah, Winneshiek County [Iowa]) 1895-1928, 1909-09-22

|
as experts examined the records covering
said years and reported that there was
coming to the county, for reasons set
forth in said report, from the said Miz-
ener, the sum of $l6695S, which he the
said Mizener should pay back to the
county: Mizener was notified of the ma
ture of said report; committee was
appointed by this board to consider mat
tiers with him; hearing was had be-
fore the said committee on the 9th day
of August, 1909, at which said MiZener
appeared in person and by an attorney,
E. w. Cutting, and most of an afternoon
spent in the consideration of the mat
ter; at this hearing the County Attor-
ney was presents at the end of such
hearing said Mizener offered to comprO-
mize that portion of said account cover
ing the year 1906 by paying the county
the sum of $4,000, though denying any
liability whatever, and taking the legal
position as to the years l902-3-4 and 5
that any action for such years and up
to January, 1906 was barred by the
Statute of Limitations under the Code
of Iowa and the decisions of the SUI
preme Court of Iowa; his position as to
that part of said account covering the
y
county had no claim against him and
second that even if it had, such claim
was barred; the matter was continued
for further hearing before the whole
Board and the County Attorney was re-
quested to examine the law as to the
legal contention on the part of MiZener;
on this continuance the matter came up
for further hearing before the whole
| DE-. ,-I IS Ntnv .INAv
18th, 1909. and the whole afternoon TAX
EN- up in the consideration of the matter:
at this hearing Mizener was present in
person ana by his attorney E. w. Cut
ting, and the County Attorney was also
present i'm the interests of the County:
the decisions by the Supreme Court of
Iowa relied upon as sustaining the con-
tention of the attorney for Mizener, that
said accounts for the years l9O2-3-4-5
was barred. were read to the Board; the
said account covering the year 1906 was
taken up almost in detail and discussed
and it was shown that there were many
mistakes made in said Wilkinson & Son
report for that year which would ma
terially reduce the amount of the said
claim in any event; it was also shown
that as to part of said account for that
year the same was based upon law
which was open to different construc-
tions and no adjudicated case to assist
and determine just what the rule was or
should be; if the law was construed as
contended for by NIizener then a large
item in said account would be thrown
out and the said claim further reduced;
in short, according to the contention of
Mizener. instead of his owing the county
| for the wear 1906 the sum of $4S6.39, as
shown by said report, correcting all mis-
takes and constituting the law as MiZener
contended it should be construed, the
county would owe Mizener the sum of
$500 for that year. Mizener at this
hearing denied that he was owing the
county anything for all these years,
claimed the action as to the first four
years was barred any way, and for the
purpose of settling the matter as to
1906 and avoiding costs, expenses, ETC..
connected with litigation, renewed his
offer to pay $4,000 by way of compro-
mise for the year 1906; the County At
torney fled written opinion to the ef-
feet that under the Statute and the de-
cision of our Supreme Court, all of said
claim up to January. 1905, was barred
and that there was reason for at least
one other legal position taken by MiZ-
ener, which made it doubtful just how
the courts would rule on same.
| Now, Therefore, be it Resolved, that
| i'm consideration of the foregoing. we
deem it for the best interests of the
County to accept the said offer of com
promise made by Geo. Mizener, and do
hereby accept same in full compromise of
that portion of said account covering the
year 1906. In our opinion and the Opin-
ion of the County Attorney if an action
were brought on said account for said
year 1906, the very most the county
could recover in such action would not
be more than the said offer hereby ac
cepted; while the probability was that
the recovery in such action would be
less than such offer, and there was the
possibility of the action being defeated
entirely and said Mizener recovering a
judgment against the County. AS to
that portion of the said account covering
the years l9O2-3-4 and 5, in view of the
Supreme Court decisions of this state
and the opinion of the County Attorney,
we are satisfied that any action is barred
thereon; that to carry on such litigation
would be useless expense to the cOun-
| ty, and therefore it is hereby resolved
not to have any action brought thereon
| and it is so ordered.
The yeas and nays were called for on
this resolution and resulted as follows:
Selnes, yea, Meyer, yea, Jewell, yea,
Jones, yea, Cooper, yea. All members
voting yea, and the resolution was adopt
ed. $50
| 1t was moved, seconded and carried
that $6.48 be refunded to Lovina Nc
Lain, she being soldiers widow ard en-
titled to said exemption.
The remainder of the forenoon was
taken up in auditing claims against the
county.
On motion adjourned to go p. m.
On account of making bridge trip
Board did not meet at the Court House
for their afternoon session.
700 p. m.-Board met ut the Court
House for the purpose of letting
Fridge contract.
On motion adjourned to $3.50 a. m,
Sept. IL, 1909.
SIXTH DAY.
Board met as per adjournment, all
members present and called to order.
Minutes of previous meeting were read
and approved.
Moved, seconded and carried that l.. L..
Caldwell, Geo. Nj. Anderson and X. L.
Haugen be appointed as Soldiers Re
lief Commission for The ensuing year.