The Twin Falls times. [volume] (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1905-1916, 1916-03-10
DOG MUzzLING
ORDER MISLAID
Required Proofs of Action Taken
Not to Be Found
COUNTY ATTORNEY REFUSES TO
ACT ON INSUFFICIENT RECORD.
All Legal Requirements Seems to Have
Been Net But Cannot be Proven
VIII Cure Defect.

A lively informal meeting OF the
county commissioners was held Wed
nesday morning at which there was an
exchange of arguments between
County Attorney John T. Davies, and
Chairman e. o. Carlson over the cause
of the Noncompliance with the dog
muzzling ordinance, recently passed
by the commissioners acting as a
board of health. Chairman Carlson
complained that he had sent men to
the county attorney TO get complaints
drawn for failure to muzzle dogs, and
that he wanted those violating the or
dinance fined IS, and he asserted that
the county attorney failed to draw the
required papers, when requested, with
the result that the impression had
gone forth that the law was no longer
enforced and the people were laughing
at the commands of the board
! County Attorney Davies retorted that
there was no record of the action of
the board beyond imperfect minutes
and published copies and that he had
refused to be responsible for the bring
ing of actions where he could find no
legal documents of file which would
stand the test if questioned by an at
torney He said that the county audi
tor was not the person to keep minutes
of the county board OF health, but he
had looked for the necessary papers in
the auditors office and had visited the
office of DR.. Dunno, the ,Ounty physi-
clan, and had failed TO find them. The
board should have reported the action
to the state board at Boise and had
their endorsement. He had not given
out the statement that the order was
not to be enforced and was not respons-
ible for the report that it was not to be
enforced. He had told the deputies
who asked him to draw up papers for
prosecution, that he would not do so
because he could not find the proper
papers on which to act, but was will
ing that they should proceed on their
own responsibility to bring actions
and had said that the published copy
might serve the purpose if not ques-
toned. He said that the statement of
the chairman that he wanted yiolators
fined IS was improper, as the courts
were the ones to determine what fine,
If any, should be levied in a given case
The chairman replied that they had
sent the report of the action to Boise
as required by law and had received a
! letter back which was an endorsement
of their action. 1t was not the bust
! ness of the board to keep the letter
: personally and it should be on file
, somewhere, with the original of the
! order for muzzling the dogs. The coun-
! ty attorney replied that he had tried
to find 1t and could not The chair
man again intimated that the report
. that the order was not to be enforced
! resulted from conferences of the de-
puties with the county attorney, and
: both men became indignant. The
chairman said that the county attor-
, ney had refused to act before he had
looked up the records. This the law
q yer denied, saying that he had report
ed his opinion to the chairman six
4, weeks ago, and had investigated some
!. time before
The ruction finally wound up with
all concerned in better humor, and
with Carlson offering to bet the cigars
with Davies that the county attorney
got mad first Just who should have
v kept the records In the case did not
] appear from the discussion.
The board members declared their
intention to take action which would
straighten out the trouble and make
= the records so clear that they could
e. not be successfully questioned In
court
=. The disappearance of the required
> records in the county case, In no way
, affected the enforcement of the cit,
:. ordinance.