American Falls press. [volume] (American Falls, Idaho) 1907-1937, 1915-11-25
APPEAL CASES.

AS stated in last weeks Press Attorney Baird has filed
five appeals from actions taken by the board of county
commissioners, and the same will be heard in the district
court. Four Of these cases grew out of the building of the
Bannock Valley road. The other relates to the fee reports
Of the sheriff and auditor.
In order that the public may have a clear understand
ing Of the issues involved, the Press will consider them
more e~xtendedly than was possible the short time last
week would permit.
Number One is directed at a resolution passed by the
board as justification in the employment of special coun-
sci to defend the payment of $4,554.08 to Highway Dis
trict No. l, for the cost of constructing the Bannock Val
ley Highway south of the Highway District No. l bound
aries. The reason assigned by the commissioners was that
Mr.. Davis, law partner of Mr.. Baird, was employed by
Highway District No. 2, and that this disqualified County
Attorney Baird from representing the county.
Mr.. Bard's appeal denies that he is disqualified, and
sets up that no necessity exists for the employment of
spcial cou. ,e.
When Highway District No. 1 was organized, it was
found that it contained 76.5 per cent of the valuation of
the ent'r, county. When the funds were apportioned be-
tween the district and the county, the district was given
76.5 per cent of all the road and bridge moneys on hand,
and was charged with 765 Of all the outstanding warrants
and Indebtedness chargeable to the road and bridge fund.
This division Of the funds was in accordance with Chapter
55, 1911 Session laws, enacted to meet such conditions. The
district received $l279.5O in cash, and had to assume 81,
282.75 in bills.
Highway District No. 2 was created by vote on June %,
and the vote was canvassed June "a and the result an
rounced. 1t was not formally organized, however, until
August 26, when the highway commissioners were ap-.
pointed Nv Governor Alexander.
In the meantime work was being prosecuted in the con-
s~truction Of the Bannock Valley highway under arrange
ments made with the highway district by Commissioner
Sparks and sanctioned by the other members Of the board
Of county commissioners. When Highway District No. 2
was formally organized Auditor Bulfinch apportioned the
funds and Indebtedness as he had done before.
The same law was applied as in the former case, but
changed conditions brought about different results. There
was no cash in the fund to be divided. There were out
standing warrants amounting to $47245, and bills con
traeted amounting to $l4945. In addition there was the
claim of Highway District No. l for $4,55408 for building
the county's part of the Bannock Valley highway. These
made a total Indebtedness of $5,175.7S. Highway District
No = nc orpanized contained &c nr cent of thp valuation
of the county not includede in Highway District No. l,
and hence, under the law took 66 per cent of this debt, or
$3,427.01. This apportionment was not satisfactory to
the commissioners of Highway District No. 2 and they
appeared before the county commissioners and protested.
Considering the fact that steps had been taken to create
Highway District No. 2 by the filing of a petition asking
fer the fixing of a date for holding an election before the
arrangement was perfected between the county and High
way District No. and the further fact that the building
OF the Bannock Valley road will not benefit the residents
Of Highway District No. 2, the apportionment, while fol
lowing the plan laid down by law, is open to challenge on
TIE ground of equity. It is therefore a fit subject for adj
judication.
In the records of the county commissioners there is no
mention OF any proposed arrangement with Highway Dis
trlct No. to build the Bannock Valley road in either the
April or July meetings. In September the commissioners
ADOPTED a resolution purporting to cover the arrangement
claimed to have been entered into, as of date of April meet
my. and reciting that failure to record the resolution was
an oversight.
Attorney Baird alleges that this resolution is a falsifi-
cation of the records and in contravention to public policy;
that the commissioners had no authority to enter into such
a contract, that no legal contract was made, and alleging
illegality on the ground that Sparks was a member of both
of the contracting boards.
The resolution further sets forth that on July IL that
commissioners Sparks reported that Gas alleged to have
been authorized) he entered into a contract on behalf of
the county to have the highway district build the road at
actual cost, on June 14th.
Attorney Baird alleges Justification of the records.
claiming no contract was proposed and no authority given
to make such q contract; that no specifications were made
and no bond given and was illegal if made, for reasons set
OF in the former case.
No. 4 appealed from the order of the commissioners to
pay $4,56408 for the building of the county's part of this
road on the same grounds as recited above.