Tonopah daily bonanza. [volume] (Tonopah, Nev.) 1906-1929, 1910-08-05
DEMURRER TO
INDICTMENT Is
KNOCKED OUT
lContinned from page Two

sion at the best, because the in
dictment refers throughout to the
defendants as a board" by the
expression commissioners afore-
said. following an explanation
that they constituted the board Of
new city hall commissioners The
word aforesaid" means already
described or identified Webster's
Int Diet 30 Another case cited
by the defendants is not altogether
in point ~ S. w. 654. 1t was
case in which commissioners and
county treasurer were charged
with conspiracy, and was governed,
of course, by the rules of conspir-
lacy If the cases under discussion
take on an aspect of conspiracy
because the commissioners acted to-
is against the contention of the
defendants, for ii reads in part:
IF one or more Of the county
commissioners entered
into conspiracy to
misapply the funds of the county
then a suit could be maintained
| for the removal Of any one or
more of such commissioners. And
this is consistent with the rule in
conspiracy as stated by Bishop:
The averment may be that sin
| gle defendant, together with others,
who are not made defendants did
it." J Bishop \. C. p, 292 Bish-
op further declares this principle:
IF two act together in the doing,
it is the same as to each. This
principle has very wide applica-
ton. and includes cases like those
under discussion.
Another contention OF counsel
for defendants is that the accusa-
tons accuse each commissioner for
not rejecting the claim or bill, and
objection is made to the use of the
word reject" The accusations
must be taken as a whole, and so
taken they clearly show that fault
is found with the allowance and
approval" not with failure to "re-
ject" the bill or claim. Only one
of the paragraphs of each accu-
sation contains the word reject.
tand in these words "had it vel
within his means to reject said bill
or claim. Moreover if this ex.
ipression he considered by itself and
standing alone, it cannot violate
the accusations Section 2115 com.
piled laws reads: "No demand
upon the treasury shall be ap.
proved in favor of any
person or officer in any manner in
debted to the county, without first
deducting the amount of such in
debtedness. 1t is argued that this
section does not provide for the
rejection of a proper bill or claim
but that such a demand must be
allowed, and if any Indebtedness
exists, credited against the indebt-
edness. Thus, if an officer owe
the county $500, his claim for
salary. say of $500 per month
must be allowed and credited upon
his Indebtedness, and cannot be re-
jected if a proper claim. All this
may be true, but there is diff
ference between a claim for money
due and demand on the treasury
The officer might claim the amount
due him without making a demand
upon the treasury. In such a case
the claim could be allowed and
credited. But he might claim an
amount due him and make a de-
such case the commissioners
could reject the latter absolutely
if there were an Indebtedness
. against the officer. for he can have
no den'and on he treasury it.
self whi'o he e in lebtod 10 til
county II greater amcurt thar
his demand. The allowance OF the
claim results merely in bookkeep-
ing, but the allowance of demand
upon the treasury results in the
withdrawal of money from the
county funds.
There is another way of looking
at it. The commissioners are re.
CURED to deduct the Indebtedness
and are then allowed to approve
a demand on the treasury for the
amount remaining due the officer
Under the illustration given above
they might properly actually re-
l1ect q claim for salary each mont i