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

}
without anything else being shown.
Judge Lewiss dissenting opinion
would not have much weight, par
ticularly because of some of the
cases he depends upon. which are
clearly not law at present, if it'll
had not been recognized in a later
case, so far as his conclusions are
concerned by the supreme court of
Nevada, in these words: The rule
adopted by the majority of the
court in the Gardner case
is disproyed." 1t also is true that
4 Judge Lewis's opinion is not form-
ally adopted instead of the major
ity opinion in the Gardner case,
but it is true that his conclusion is
adopted the court holding that the
intent need not even be a wrong
full one, and that there may be
no intent except that involved in
doing the thing forbidden TO be
done by the statute, State VS..
Zichfield, % Nevada, 304 A par
agraph of the syllabus of this case
: reads: "One who does a thing
forbidden by statute is liable to the
) punishment there imposed, though
: in so doing it he had no evil intent,
: unless the statute make such in
: tent an element of the crime.
The two cases cited clearly show
: that our supreme court does not
: insist that the intent must always
: be corrupt or evil one, but rath-
err that it may consist in the will
! full doing of the act prohibited. And
e this is nothing more than common
5, sense; there is ne use in prohib
h iting an act if man do it will
e fully and then plead that there
l. was nothing evil or corrupt in hi
doing it.
L. The next point made is that thes,
is accusations cannot be charged
,e against the individual commission
in ers, but must be made against tn
ar board of commissioners as a body
i'd because of the wording of the stat
of ute: mo demand upon the treas
or ury shall be approved by the boar
ne of county commissioners
t: in favor of any person or officer i
be any manner indebted to the cour
1t, ty.'' This argument is ingcniou.
ad but it is not very well supported
of and it might easily lead MS int
ct, absurdities. 1t may be that wha
ad is meant is that the commission
I'D ers should all be accused in tn
n same instrument. 1t is contende
he that only the board, acting throug
on at least a majority of its members
n could complete the offense; an
he that if one member voted for tn
allowance of the claim, no matte
ed how many times, he could Their,
n by commit no offense, because h
ry action alone would not result
he the allowance of the claim.
he other words, he might have the il
es tent, but alone could not perforl
ut the prohibited act This argumeI
lie simply means that intent alone cal
he not constitute a crime Thousand
RS of examples might be used for i
es Illustration all of which lead I
de the same place-that SO long {
he he does not commit the act, whetl
TIL er the interference is from fello
at men or from any other cause, /
commits no crime, but if he pc
or sists and even for a moment ii
!" interference ceases and the act
ms consummated, the crime become
an complete.
tie Each member of the board
n commissioners is obligated to pc
as form the duties of his office, bot
ey those of affirmative and those
III, NEGATIVE CHARACTER. IL the UOdl
&C. is prohibited from performing
IL certain act, that prohibition e,
Sc tends to every member of it, fc
ry the act of the board is the act {
st its members, or at least majo
on ity of them. If the prohibition
al lived up to by the members, til
ms board as whole can never pc
mt form the act and the board. {
1t such, can only perform the pre-
u hibited act when its members i;
w more the command of the law NJ
i'll to act. A prohibition directe
nd against board is prohibition d
gre rected to its understanding whic
of is the understanding o. its men
a bers. for it has no other.
IL The pOutpntipu of thp dpfpud la n