Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-05-22
State of Oregon V. Maddox, Morrow
COuntV

County,
State Of Oregon, respondent, v. E.
C. Maddox, appellant. Appeal from
the circuit court for Morrow county
Hon. H. j. Bean, Judge Jay Bower
man, for appellant. A. NJ. Crawford,
for respondent. Argued and submit
ted at Pendleton May l, 1911. Bur-
nett, j. Affirmed.
| The defendant herein was indicted
by the grand jury of Morrow county
for selling intoxicating liquor in vio-
lation of the local option law. He
pleaded not guilty. The case was
tried by the court without a jury in
pursuance of stipulation which re-
cited certain facts leaving the court
to pronounce judgment thereon. By
the stipulation it was agreed in sub
stance that the facts alleged in the
indictment are true, but the defen-
dant contends that the acts narrated
therein are not violative of any stat
ute of the state for the reason that
the county court of Morrow county
never made any valid order prohibit
| ing the sale of liquor in the county.
! The stipulation further states that an
entry was made in the commissioners
| journal of that county on June IL,
| 1908, that being the eleventh day af-
ter the general election held on the
first Monday in that month, and at
the time fixed by law for holding
special session of the county court,
which order recites that upon a can
vass of the votes on the question of
prohibition of the sale of intoxicating
liquors for beverage purposes in the
entire county of Morrow, there ap-
peared to be 709 votes for and 469
against prohibition, whereupon the
court ordered that the sale of intoxi-
eating liquors within the entire coun-
ty be and the same Is hereby abso-
lutely prohibited except for the pur-
poses and under the regulations spec
ified in the local option law. 1t was
conceded that all acts and require
ments pertaining to the local option
election were regular and as re-
quired by law and were all duly per-
formed, except the making of the or
der of prohibition. 1t was agreed
that the May term Of the county court
adjourned finally May Z, 1908; that no
term was appointed by the court it.
self or the judge thereof for the
month of June; that as appears by
the journals of the county court no
business of any kind was transacted
in the court until June 4, 1908, and
except some orders in probate no
other business appears on the journal
until the entry of the order in ques-
ton on June 12, 1908. The parties
apparently treated this stipulation as
a special verdict under the provisions
of section 1913, L. o. L., and took the
judgment of the court as to the legal
effect of the facts thus agreed upon.
The court determined upon the stip-
ulation that the defendant was guilty
as charged in the indictment and fined
him 800, from which Judgment he
appeals.
Burnett, j.: The constitution of
the state, as it existed at and prior
to the filing of the indictment, de-
clared that there shall be elected in
each county, for the term of four
years, a county judge, who shall hold
the county court at times to be regu-
lated by law. The county court shall
have the jurisdiction pertaining to
probate courts, and boards of county
commissioners, and such other pow
ers and duties, and such civil juris-
diction not exceeding the amount of
value of five hundred dollars, and
such criminal jurisdiction not extend,
ing to death or Imprisonment in the
penttentiary, as may be prescribed by
law. But the legislative assembly
may provide for the election of two
commissioners to sit with the county
Judge whilst transacting county bust
ness in any or all of the coupnties, or
may provide a separate board for
transacting such business" Const.
Or. Art. T, Secs, IL, 12. The constant
factor of the county court is the
county Judge County commissioners
are in addition to that tribunal
authorized or not, as the legislature
may determine, and then only for the
transaction of county business as de-
fined by section 937, L. o. L. 1t re-
lates to the fiscal concerns of the
county and the management of its af-
fairs as public corporation. The
exercise of such other powers and
duties as may be prescribed by law,
for the county court was by the words
of the then constitution vested in the
county judge, The case of State v
McElrath, 49 DR.. 294, is decisive of
nearly all the questions involved
here. The contention of the defen-
dant is that the order of the county
court declaring the result of the To-
cal option election and prohibiting
the sale of intoxicating liquors,
though regular in form, was not
made in term time and was therefore
void.
1t is provided by section 10 of what
is commonly known as the local op-
tion law that ION the tenth day after
any election hereon, or sooner if all
the returns be received, the county
clerk, taking to his assistance two
justices Of the peace of the county,
shall proceed to open said returns
and make an abstract of the vote for
the information of the county court.
Said court shall, on the eleventh day
after the election, or as soon there
after as practicable, hold a special
session; and il a majority of the
votes hereon in the county as
whole, or in any subdivisions in the
A. l.