The Mena weekly star., 1916-10-26
IIJDCE BOWLING
 ON COUNTY AUDIT
|, opiuion From Bench. Judge sUear's Course Is Sustained-Cites Examples Showing Business
 Men Use Method for Safety.

an fhp suit brought ny cHdl1on pavnolds & Bone for the collection ot nayment for services rendered polk county in making the audit oi eountv records, which payment hae heen contested by k. J. Doyle and others. rendered decision that closely follows the ruling of the Su- nreme court in the case of E.. F I eatbem X Co. vs. Jackson County in which practically the same is- snes were involved. He said, in sub- stance. in passing on the case: T have no interest whatever in this matter-these controversies and things which arise and these differ ences of opinion that divide the peo- nle-except to pass on the legal questions that are presented to me interest that I have in the matter and it is purely legal question that am called to pass upon.
 County Court Had Authority.
 AS to the wisdom or the lack of wisdom in making this contract. and having the audit made, and paying tbe price that has been paid, unless there is an abuse of discretion, shown by preponderance of testi- mony. or there has been fraud or corruption on the part of the County judge. there is nothing for me to do. The first question at issue is the authority of the County court to make such a contract. 1t Is not contended, I believe, since that de- eision in the Leathem case, that the County judge has not the authority under proper conditions, to employ expert accountants to audit the books and records of the county. I think that the Supreme court has expressly decided that the County court has such authority. Now then when any person has the authority to make contract, then the ques- tion whether it is good or bad con- tract is hardly a question for the courts to decide, unless in case of a public officer, or in an inferior court. if it is clearly shown that court has abused it's discretion. When 1t is conceded he has the au- thority, then it is within the dis eretion of that court to make a con- tract. If he makes a good or bad contract that is within his discre- tion; he is the judge whether that contract should or should not be made, unless he clearly abuses his discretion.
 Price Paid Not An Issue.
 Tn this case the County Judge has made contract with auditors to au- dit the county records. The Judge made it and ratified it by the County court. One contention is that the price paid was too much. Now that is not the question for this court. If he had authority to make the con- tract. and after the contract is ac- tually made and the services rem dered and the time come to pay for such services. this court could not say that the contract made with the county, if 1t is within authority, IS not as binding as a contract made between individuals. Suppose a man sends out his agent to make a contract for the purchase of a piece of property. The agent makes the contract under full authority. and when the time comes the principal says his agent has paid too much. He could not plead that. If the county had the authority to make that contract and did make fl. it is binding whether 1 thought it was toe much or not too much to pay, Now, mind you, the order making this contract was not appealed from. That question is not here for re- view The matter comes here on the matter of making payment under the contract. The original contract as ratified by tie county conrt IS not appealed to this court, This is a question of stopping payment. and the question of the reasonableness of the amount of pay is not mat ter for adjudication.
 Fraud Not Contended or Proven.
 There are three questions raised in that Leathem decision which II is intimated might be grounds on which a contract of this kind might be attacked. That is, when fraudu- lently and corruptly made by. col fusion between the auditors and the county court or county judge. There IS nothing of that kind contended here or proven, so we dismiss that The next two grounds are that Il was capriciously or arbitrarily made. The question is whether Il was capriciously or arbitrarily made, that is, abuse of discretion regardless of consequences and re- gardless of necessity. If it were found that the county judge did that l think that would be grounds. un- der that decision, for denying re- lief or setting aside this contract Under the state of affairs existing here, under the testimony we have the County judge is the fiscal ageni Of the county. with authority tc make contracts, which. in his judg- ment are to the hest interests of tht affairs of the county. so long as ht does not abuse his discretion or acl arbitrarily or capriciously. Here + a. county expending a large amount oi money, receiving and disburslnf large amounts of funds. The County Judge says he is not bookkeeper not an expert. The accounts art presented for his approval under oath. So far as he can observe, they are all right. But since he is not ar expert he can not go into the origi- nal sources Of information ant prove and check up things and de ermlne whether the reports are ac- curate and whether the account are accurately kept. He has noth- lng except things on the surface t' indicate the correctness. He doe not know.
 IL.