Bonners Ferry herald. [volume] (Bonners Ferry, Idaho) 1904-current, 1914-01-09

vided by sections 744o CT seq.
of the Revised Statutes, and
the accusation must be by the
prosecuting attorney or pre-
ssnted by the grand jury,
1T will be noticed in thia case
that the defendant did not present
any claim to the board, or allow
any claim to himself. OF course,
If an officer should collect illegal
fees by connivauce or collision
with a third party such Indirect
procedure might still come within
the statute, but there is no alleaa-
ton Of any such connivapce or
collision.
The vice Of the transactions
alleged seems to lie in the fact that
defendant made the contract and
sold the goods to these contractors
who were using the goods for the
benefit of the county. There are
various sections of our statute
which are broad enough to cover
sue h transactions. Section 255
provides thati Members of the
Legislature, state, county, city,
district and precinct officers must
not be interested in any contract
made by them in their official capa-
city, or by any body or board OF
which they are members. Section
1856 provides that No member OF
the board must be interested direct
ly or Indirectly. in any property
purchased for the use of the county
nor in any purchase or sale Of pro-
perty belonging to the county, nor
in any contract made by the board
or other person, on behalf of the
county for the erection of public
buildings, the opening or improve
ment of roads, or the building o.
bridges, or for other purposes.
Sec. ESQ provides that said county
district. precinct and city officers
must not be purchasers at any sail
nor vendors at any purchase mad
By them in their official capacity
/ Other sections of the statute max
{ all such contracts void,
If the charges contained in tn
5 information are true, the detendan
has certainly violated several c
t the aforesaid sections of the statute
1 The only question in my mind ha
s been whether such violations ar
e within section 745o, under whie
e this proceeding is brought.
t tLere were direct sale to th
t county, and presentation, allow
+ snee and receipt of payment tox
n claim by the comtmpgsis commissioner, as
e the case of Robinson VS.. Huffake'
It 23rd Idaho, l73, ! should be Il
r clined to follow the opinion OF tt
! supreme court in that case an
" hold that such transaction amour
Ell to the collection of an illeg
Al fee, but do not think that Il
is facts in this case are strictly analaI
GUS to the facts in the Robinsc
al case, In the Robinson case, OF
IS of the items was bill fled by Il
S, defendant in the sum of $14.lS +
lie insuring the pest house house Of t
tie COUNTY, wherein the defenda
= county commissioner, as age
At for the insurance COMPANY. Al
l. likewise the agent Of the count
wrote a policy insuring the pr
es house, The trial court found tn
~ this was not a fee under secti
n F459, and the supreme col
70 affirmed the trial courts fndin
y: on that matter.
of The general demurrer as
es each cause of action Will, the.
be fore, be sustained. In so holdir
d, ( do not intend to be understo
err for an instant as condoning
ng transaction of the defendant spe
fed in the informattiyqpgRA, oF 70 n no
ase ing that he has not violated
40 official duties. The ruling on
vs. demurrer is based simply and sol
|. on the idea that section F4s9 q
r not apply to the transaction IN
/ toned"