The Sentinel=record., 1915-04-11
FARMER CONTRACT
 IS DECLARED VOID
DECISION FAVORABLE TO BUCH- AVIAN IS RENDERED BY CIR
 CUT JUDGE WOOD.
County Levyng Court Had Made No Specific Appropriation to Pay For Suit Against Judge Gotham.

Because the county leyying court had made ospecitic appropriation to pay for the expense of litigation nee essary to recover in a friendly action the amount of salary paid by Garland county to Judge Calvin T. Gotham, which amount dated from the time the legislature created the Eighteenth judicial circuit until the supreme court rendered a decision that it was the states duty to pay the salary of the circuit judge, the contract made with the county court by Attorney Thurston P. Farmer, who represented Garland county in the aforesaid friendly litigation, was yesterday de clared void by Circuit Judge Scott Wood, who rendered a decision in the suit brought by Gus Buchanan, secre. tary to Mayor McClendon, to have the claim set aside. The amount in yolYed is $121G.61, representing, ac cording to the contract with the county court, one-fourth of whatever might be recovered ythe action
 The Eighteenth judicial circuit was created by the general assembly in 1911, and up to the time the decision of the supreme court was rendered there had been paid to Judge Gotham by the county for salary the sum of $4,866.46. On January 1j, 1915. Attor- uey ThurstOn F. Farmer executed a written contract with the county court to recover the aforesaid amount, The last general assembly also reimbursed Judge Gotham for the salary due him in that period, when he confessed judgment The case when before Judge Wood was whether or not the contract was valid and binding on the county.
 Judge Wood prepared written de- cision. which he read, and in which he held tha tthe evidence showed that no specific appropriation had been made for the employment of special coun el for the county in the case against Judge Gotham. An appropriation of 5000 for general county purposes has been made, but the court held that the litigation in question could not be considered in that light. Judge Wood also called attention to the fact that it is the duty of the prosecuting attorney to commence and prosecute actions in which any county in his circuit is interested, as well as for the recovery of debts securing to the county. It is also the duty Of the prosecuting attorney, Judge Wood held, to give his opinion, without fee or reward, to any court in his circuit when required on any question of law or other matters in which said county may be interested.
 There is no provision in the stat utes authorizing the county court to contract with attorneys to prosecute suits for the county declared Judge Wood.
 T cannot see, therefore, how the fee of an attorney especially em- ployed by the county court could be considered as an expense necessarily incident to the management of the cuunty's business. Contracts with at torney in such cases are only made under unusual circumstances. d. clared Judge Wood, who also held that if special counsel was needed or the county court had contemplated the employment of special counsel the matter could have been presented to the leyying court He also held that before such a contract could be legally made there must be an appro- priation made for the specific pur- pose, and as no aIproprlation had been made the contract was void. Continuing, Judge Wood said:
 "AnotAer question which arises ID this case is: Has the county co"rt the authority to contract to pay con tiugent fee to an attorney employed by it to represent the county? Such fees are always for a greater amount than the actual value of the services rendered. It is the policy of the law of this state to require the county court to pay no more for anything furnished to the county than its actual cash value | doubt whether such a contract by the county is valid in any case, but it is not necessary to decide that question here.
 "The case is not one in which the result is so uncertain that a contin- gent fee would be justified. Since appellee has transferred the warrants issued to him, the holders Of the war rants may have some rights in the matter and will continue the case to have them made parties"