The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-05-10
LEGAL.
No. 1896.
The State of Kansas, Plaintiff,


NJ c. Kennedy, Defendant
Original Proceedings in Quo Warranto.
svIsB TPGME ~ the BoF cd DEFENP 1Afcb,
i Under the provisions of article ?,
chapter IA, General Statutes 1909, the
termine what bridges shall be repaired
at the expense of the county. the plans
to be followed, the material to be used
and the cost of the work, and must make
appropriations to pay for the work. II
may appoint a superintendent of repair
for each bridge, but is not obliged to do
so, and may itself exercise general over.
sight and supervision of the execution of
contracts for such work.
,. The efficient discharge of it's duties
may, and frequently does, require the
board of county commissioners to per-
form official services outside of board
observation and combined participation
of all the members may not be necessary
ing as a committee of the board, may
render lawful services as a commission
er. Bridge repair work and oversight of
the poor farm may afford opportunity
for such service
g. The statutes of this state 10 not
limit the compensation Of members of
pay for services rendered at board meet
ings and single members performing ser
MAY be paid therefor the per diem
compensation provided by statute, and
statutory mileage.
section 1903, General Statutes of 1909. pro-
viding that If any county commissioner
forfeit his office and be removed. involves
the intentional disregard of law from
improper motives; and in order that the
payment of excessive or illegal demands
against the county may be corrupt the
commissioner must have purposed to vi
olate his official duty, defraud the county
by Incorporating it's funds and secure
to himself or to someone else unlawful
gain.
~ m icSin on he or has
ruptly performed his duties tue burden
of showing corruption rests upon the
good faith until the contrary is made
to appear by evidence, and the conunIs-
sioner is not called upon to justify him
self until something evidencing corr1p-
ton is offered.
s. In such an action record proof of
the number of board meetings attended
by the commissioner in a given month
merely shows what his compensation for
attending board meetings in that month
that other services were not performed,
or cast the burden upon the commission
er of justifying the receipt of more COM
pensation for that month than he was
entitled to for attending board meetings.
Z. Occasional departures by the board
of county commissioners from the stat
ute relating to the allowance of claims
against the county, as that claims were
not verified, occurring through mere in
advertance, without wrongful Intent ana
under circumstances exposing the
county to no imposition or injury. do not
constitute corruption.
s. The payment of claims which are not
sufficiently itemized, occurring through
a misinterpretation of the statute relat-
ing to that subject, does not constitute
corruption where the board acts in good
faith and relies upon the advice of the
county attorney that the claims are sufti-
GENTLY itemized.
g. Under section 2309, General Statutes
1909, providing that if any commissioner
or other county officer shall neglect or
refuse to perform any act which 1t is his
duty to perform he shall forfeit his Of
flee and be removed, he duty must ne
personal and the act must be one which
the officer has the legal capacity and
authority to perform or he can not be
guilty of neglect
TO- 1t is not every oversight or onis-
sion within the strict letter of the law
which will entail forfeiture of office. The
purpose of the statute is to prevent per
sons from continuing to hold office whose
inattention to duty, either because Of its
habitualness or its gravity, endangers the
public welfare; and the neglect contem-
Indifference to duty so persistent or IN
affairs of such Importance that the safe
ty of the public interests is threatened.
IL Under the circumstances of this
case it is held that Irregularities IN the
publication of statements of sums Of
money allowed and in advertisements for
bids for bridge repair work, failure to
publish estimates of expenditures upon
which tax levies were made and failure
to advertise for bids for the repair of a
bridge do not constitute legal causes for
the removal of a county commissioner from
office on the ground of neglect of duty.
Ali the justices concurring.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
TS;eal1 Clerk Supreme Court.