The copper era and Morenci leader., 1914-12-11
SUPERVISORS
CASE IS DECIDED
At TOMBSTONE

! At Tombstone on December q is Deeid.
ed Suit of Greeniee County Taxpay.
ers Asainst Ex-supervisors 81
county-Decision Is that Plaintiffs
Win, on Three Counts, While Other
Two Counts Are withdrawn
Case Tests. Latitude of Supervisors
in Expendins Public Funds.
At Tombstone. Arizona, on December
4, was decided the suit of the Green
Ilee county taxpayers, represented by
Jas. Parks, of Duncan. against B. F.
lBillingsley, of Duncan, George Web
ster, of Ell Paso, and ]. II. T. Cosper,
of Blue, all three defendants being
ex-supervisors of Greenlee county,
| their term being the one succeeded
by that of the present supervisors.
This case was brought by Parks,
from the standpoint of taxpayer,
and representing the other taxpayers
Of the county, on the grounds that the
three supervisors spent Greenlee
county funds without due authority of
law.
Five specific counts were included
in the complaint of Parks. These
counts, with decision rendered con-
corning each, follow:
Count number one was that the. de-
PENDANTS refunded, without due author
ity of law of the state, certain per-
centage of taxes levied by Assessor
Kerby upon personal property, the
standpoint of the defendants being
that the rate for personal property
was not clearly defined by law, and
that the rate charged should be the
same as the rate upon realty property.
The defendants followed the rate
levied upon realty property for the
year 1911 in making the refund
OF TIE taxes gathered from personal
property The total amount of the
refund was 50, 800. 90
The claim of the defendants regard
ing this count was that while con-
ceding the refund to be without
strict legality of law, yet they, as a
board of supervisors, followed closely
ton, and that as a matter of natural
justice they should not be held liable
to the taxpayers for the payment of
the amount refunded. By a special
act of the legislature, passed on
March %, 1913, this refund to the
ants was made to be valid, and this
count, therefore, was not submitted
to the jury.
Count number two was that the de-
PENDANTS paid to W.. o. Wheatley,
then clerk of the board of supervisors, (
s250.o0 for the making of duplicate |
assessment roll for the county The
plaintiff contends that Wheatley's du-
ties as clerk of the board, should in
clude the work of making the roll,
and that the regular salary paid to
him should pay for the work, rather I
than that extra payment be made i
rho defendants pleaded that the work
of making the roll was performed !,
really by F. o. Baylor, as assistant to !
Wheatley, and that the payment was :;
n the latter's name only as a matter
If office procedure This count was
lecided in favor of the plaintiff. Is
Count number three was that the
defendants paid to E. C. Heck $4,000 f
or the plans and specifications which l
we're followed in building the present c
courthouse and jail, and that the de- 4
endants were not complying with t
etc
endants claimed that the state laws "a
o specifically provide for this ac- e
on of. the defendants. This count tt
as also decided in the favor of the D
laintiff. fl
Count number, tour was that the u
efendants paid to H. o. Tunfs, then
ounty engineer, $65. 90, for the pur- b,
ose of paying Tunis' expenses for at W
in October, 1911, at the ii
bod roads convention at Prescott. nj
he complaint of Parks in this matter Iee
as that no law of the state authoriz- tv
this payment, and that such an la
,pense was extraneous to the con-
let of the county's affairs. The de- su
nse claimed that as an educational th
ctor the trip of Tunis' to the con- tn
ntion well justified them in making WI
e payment, as indirectly the coun- til
S taxpayers would be largely bene- All
ted through their knowledge con- so
rning road construction which Tunis be
ere gained. This count was decid- pu
IN favor of the plaintiff er
Count number five was that the th
pervisors without any authority of go
W paid certain sums concerning the L,
ilding. under contract. of certain trs