Tonopah daily bonanza. [volume] (Tonopah, Nev.) 1906-1929, 1910-08-05

neer could not bring suit for
payment or for damages. for there
could Be nothing actually due him
until the Indebtedness had been
overcome. But when eight months
had passed there would be due
him sl,60O. an amount from
which $500 could be deducted.
The commissioners could then no
longer refuse a demand on the
treasury for the balance Of 500,
and would. no doubt, abide by the
law exactly as it is written. So it
seems that the commissioners can
reject a demand on the treasury
when there is an Indebtedness
against it and perhaps report also
a valid claim for an amount due
which is too small to allow of de,
Quoting an indebtedness. until the
claim with others exceeds the in
debtedness or the Indebtedness is
reduced below the claim. This all
goes to show that a claim on the
county and demand on the treas
ury, may, under certain circumstan-
ces, be different things, the latter of
which the commissioners may re-
ject, but the former of which they
can not absolutely reject if it is
valid, though they may defer its
allowance. The accusations are
! faulty in using the expression
'.claim or bill all the way
| through, but the meaning is per-
fectly clear that demand on the
treasury was intended, in so far
as the sense of the documents are
| concerned. And so reading the ac-
cusations the word reject" refers
! to demand on the treasury and
is not Objectionable.
A further contention is that the
accusations do not state what char
Owens and Gilbert, or what their
claims were for. What difference
this can make it is hard to say
The commissioners passed upon
them favorably, and it was their
duty to know what they were for be-
fore they did anything of that
kind, If they passed them without
knowing, their position is not inn
i proved and if they did not know,
it should not be necessary to tell
them again. But taken as whole
the accusations fully enough state
what the demands were for.
The last contention to be dis
cussed is that the defendants are
not apprised by the accusations of
J the exact amount of the indebted
: ness of Owens and Gilbert how
such Indebtedness was incurred, and
by what method there was a de-
termination of the Indebtedness.
= This contention is important, be-
cause defense may be directed
: toward showing that no indebted
ness existed, and such a defense
properly established would be all
sufficient for acquittal There can
be no doubt that the defendants
have a right to have all the facts.
under such circumstances. set out
hn
! that they knew what the facts were
/, as to the Indebtedness when the
demands were allowed The accu-
, Stations do so state in positive and
! clear language. 1t appears that
the state has assumed heavy bur-
!. dent has assumed to prove not
; only that there was an indebtedness
to the county on the part of Gilbert
and Owens, but that the defend
ants knew it.
! Now, if they did not know this,
the state will fail to show that
they did, and no further defense
can be required. for the state must
prove what it alleges; but if the
| state proves that the defendant did
. know these things, the accusations
are sufficient in this respect, for
a man does not have to be apprised
of any fact that he already knows:
II he knows fact, no apprisal
!; could possibly aid him in prepar-
ing defense against that fact.
! Here the accusations do pot in
. form hin in detail huf
&c. -" anl e"a z"
ready 6esn ilfo:r l. lf tu cta'a.
nHoT"7 tat h Yos Informed. ne
, must have been in possession of
: the knowledge that will enable
him to prepare his defense, unless
. he has forgotten 1T which fc an