Clearwater Republican. [volume] (Orofino, Idaho) 1912-1922, 1915-04-02
Hoar Custer Case Dismissed.


On Wednesday the custer proceed
ing instituted by P. E. McRoberts
more than year ago, against Blair
E. Hoar, then county treasurer, for
taking illegal fees, came up for hear
ing in the Supreme court at Lewiston
and Judge Bugde rendered the follow
ing opinion from the bench:
1--WE have reached the conclusion
in the McRoberts case that this pen
atty depends upon the existence of
the Office, and that this case will
necessarily have to be referred back
to the trial court to enter up judg-
ment of custer from office, and that
such judgment cannot be entered up
because respondent is not in office,
and we are fully of the opinion that
the respondent must have held his
Office after the time that the penalty
was imposed; one depends necessarily
upon the other, and the appeal will
therefore be dismissed.
Section 7459 of the Penal Code of
Idaho, under which this custer pro-
ceeding was brought provides:
"When an information in writing,
verified by the oath of any person, is
presented to District Court, alleg-
ing that any officer within the juris-
diction of the Court has been guilty
of charging and collecting illegal fees
for services rendered or to be rem
dered in his Office, or has refused or
neglected to perform the official
duties pertaining to his Office, the
court must cite the party charged to
appear before the court at time not
more than ten nor less than five days
from the time the information was
presented, and on that day or some
subsequent day, not more than twenty
days from that on which the informa-
tion was presented, must proceed to
hear, in summary manner, the in
formation and evidence offered in sup
port of the same, and the answer and
evidence offered by the party in
formed against; and if on such hear
ing it appears that the charge is sus-
tanned, the court must enter decree
that the party informed against be
deprived of his office, and must enter
judgment for five hundred dollars in
favor of the informer, and such costs
as are allowed in civil cases.
AS we understand the opinion of the
Supreme Court, the question of
whether the district court erred in
not entering judgment for $500 in
favor of the informer, is not review
able by the Supreme court after the
officers term has expired. 1t follows
that an officer may not be punished
for taking illegal fees or for neglect
of duty on the last day of his term of
office. In fact, in view of the short
term of most officers in this state,
and the delays incident to judicial
procedure, it is probable that, in
most cases, the guilty officer may
avoid punishment by dilatory tactics.
An unsuccessful effort was made at
the last session of the Supreme Court
October, 1910, when Hoar was still
in office, to have the case submitted,
but Hoar's counsel, we understand,
were not disposed to argue the case at
that time and as the Supreme court
was in session at Lewiston for a few
days only, and heard only a portion of
the appeals on the calendar, it was
not possible to secure hearing at
that time. AS a result. when the
case came up for hearing at the
March term of court, Hoar's counsel
moved to dismiss on the ground that