The Winslow mail., 1916-03-31
Friday, = March 81, 1916.
Supreme Court VS.. Supervisors.

board of supervisors that band
of statesmen, with the legal as
sistance of the learned county at
torney, having satisfied their
mind that the editor of the Win
slow Mail is a taxpayer, passed
the following order as relief to
their troubled minds:
Purchase of county law library having been
made in good faith, at lowest prices obtainable.
and purchase having been made according to Ari-
zona statutes, and there being no reason for such
action. request of J. H. Chapman that board file
suit to recover purchase money is hereby de-
ned."
1t should be comforting to the
people of Navajo county to know
that the supreme court of the
state Of Arizona has no final
jurisdiction in matters arising in
this county, and that their deci-
sions can be set aside by resolu-
tions of the board of supervisors.
Less than sixty days ago the su-
preme court handed down an
interesting opinion in the case of
the supervisors of Greenlee coun-
ty, appellants, VS.. Jas. V. Parks,
appellee, on appeal from the
Judgment of the superior court
of Cochise county, and for the
edification of the board of super
visors and the brilliant county
attorney, who is drawing down
a salary regularly as the suppos-
ed legal guardian of the rights
of The taxpayers, we quote from
the opinion of the supreme court.
This case arose from the misap-
preparation of money by the
supervisors of Greenlee county,
when they appropriated $3.50 to
the clerk of the board for max
ing a duplicate assessment roll
for the county, and appropriat-
ed $65 to pay the expenses of the
county engineer to attend the
Good Roads convention at Pres
colt.
The Court says: 1T is the con-
tention of the appellants on their
assignment of error that the
moneys directed by them, as
the board of supervisors of
Greenlee county, to be paid out
of the funds of the conuty were
authorized by law and that, if
they were not authorized by law,
in auditing, allowing and direct
ing the payment of such sums of
money the board was acting in a
quasi judicial capacity within the
scope of their authority and with
out corruption or malice, and in
accordance with their honest con-
victions as to their duties. )"
Quoting Paragraph 955 of the
statutes, the Court continues:
Under the express terms of this
statute the fact that the board
may have acted in a judicial
manner, or that it's members
may have been honest and con-
scientious in their belief of their
right to pay out the sums Of
money charged, cannot in the
least affect their liability for
money paid out without authori-
ty of law" If the members of
the board would avoid personal
responsibility for salary, fees or
other sums of money paid out by
them, they must ascertain if
such payments are for purpose
authorized by some statute or
law of the state. Good faith
and honesty of purpose is no de-
fense to a law suit to recover
money paid out without the laws
sanction. The announcement of
this rule may seem harsh, but
we find it in the legislative act
and, of course, are bound by it.
1t remains for us to determine
whether the sums of money
sued for by the appellee were
paid out without authority Of
law" and if so the judgment