The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1915-12-17
OF LIMITATION
HAS RUN OUT IN
MOORE CASE

WUUIII UhUI
The action of the board of county
commissioners of Canyon county in
instructing the county attorney to
proceed by law if necessary to collect
from G. H. Moore, ex-assessor of
Canyon county, some $3,o33.o0, which
it is claimed was collected by Mr..
Moore, and which it is alleged were
not turned over to the county, makes
interesting a decision of the supreme
court of Idaho on similar charge.
1t is not admitted that the charges
against Mr. Moore are founded on
fact. The friends of Mr.. Moore
claim, and we believe that they are
lully justified in their confidence, that
Mr.. Moore has turned over to Can
yon county every dollar which be-
longed to the county. 1t has been
seven year since Mr.. Moore ceased to
be assessor and tax collector of Cam
yon county. Even though he had fail
ed to turn over money collected by
him the decision of the supreme court
referred to above estops any collec>
of limitation has run against Mr..
Moore.
Mr.. Moore probably will not seek
the protection of the statute of limit
alton, however much he may be JUS
tilted in so doing. He is entitled to
the protection of this law as is any
other citizen. However. it will not
be necessary in his case.
Decision of the Court.
The supreme court of Idaho rem
dered a decision in the case of Ban
mock county VS.. Bell, ex-clerk of the
district court of that county, June rs,
1901. In this case it was charged tina,
Bell had retained fees and received
illegal compensation. The court de-
cision was written by Judge Sullivan
and concurred in by Judge c. o.
Stockslager, a justice of the court al
that time. We, reprint from the
Haley News Miner the decision:
This action was brought by Ban
mock county against the appellant
who was clerk of the district court
and ex-officio auditor and recorder oil
said county for the years 1898 and
1894. The complaint contains two
causes of action, one for each of said
years. 1t is alleged in the complaint
in the first cause of action that the
appellant, as clerk, auditor and re.
corder of said county, did, on the six
teenth day of January, 1894, present
to the board of county commissioners
of said county an account for ser
vices rendered by the appellant fol
said county for the year 1893 in hi:
/ nA1 fa1 Nv n
that thereafter, on the seventeenth
lowed said account, except for the sun
of $3.50, and ordered Warrant
drawn in favor of appellant for thu
sum so allowed to-wit, S52.o5; anC
that said warrant was paid by tn,
treasurer of said county. In the 5tf
paragraph of the complaint is set on
an itemized statement of the items
alleged to have been illegally, cor
ruptly and fraudulently allowed
amounting to $4,000; and it is alleg
ed that none of said items were pro
per charges against said county, anC
that by reason of the allowance anC
payment of said claim the appellan
became indebted to said county in tn,
sum of $4,000; that demand has beef
made on appellant to pay the same
and he refused to do So For a sec
ond cause of action the necessary al
legations are made charging appel
liant with having collected from sal,
county, as clerk, auditor and record
er thereof, for services rendered
during the year 1894, illegal fees t,
the amount of $32o.l0. A genera
demurrer was filed to said complain
and overruled. The answer puts il
issue the material allegations of tn
complaint, and also sets up the stat
ute of-limitations. The cause was trie
by the court and Judgment entere
against the appellant for $l,0o8.8l, in
terest and costs. This appeal is iron
The judgment, taken within sixt
days after the entry thereof
The record contains bill of excep
tons purporting to contain all of tn
evidence taken on the trial. Severa
errors are assigned, but, in our vieN
Of this case, it is necessary to motto
out one of them. 1t is contended tina
The complaint shows on its face tina
both causes of action stated therei
are and were barred by the statut
of limitations. Section 4053, of tn
Revised Statutes provides that tn
period within which to commence a
action u"on a contract, obligation, @
liability not founded upon an instrr
nent of writing is four years. Sec
ton. 1860 of the Revised Statutes pre-
vides as follows: "An action for r.
lief not hereinbefore provided fc
must be commenced within four year
after the cause of action shall hav
accrued" Section 406l of the Revise
Statutes provides that the Limitation
prescribed in chapter 3 of said R,
vised Statutes apply to the state til
same as to private parties. The con