White Pine news. [volume] (East Ely, Nev.) 1920-1923, 1920-12-05


iains the demurrer filed by the de.
PENDANTS to the complaint. on the
ground that the facts set forth are
not sufficient to constitute IA cause OF
action. The demurrer Eas argued
several months ago before Judge
Taber Judge c. ]. McFadden being
disqualified in the case. by Attorney
q. +. Borenan for the plaintif detect
I've agency and Attorney Charles s.
Chandler for the defenda nts
The suit was filed in December. 1915.
by the detective agency 10 recover
s2,sS5 80 alleged 10 be due for detect
i've services rendered by that agency
10 the White Pine county grand inry
in the spring of 1917.
The complaint set forth thei about
March ), 1917, a grand jury was cni-
panelled In the district court OF ELY
of which body the defendant DOYLE
was foreman and the other two defend.
ants Were .mcpbcrs: that the grand
jury became desrous of procuring the
aid of the detective agency and that
defendants requested it to furnish Ger
tain detectives 10 make an investiga-
lion of alleged criminal matters In the
county: and In consideration of the
agency furnishing the desired detect
ives the defendants agrr~d That they
individually would see that tho bill
was paid at the rate of So per day and
all expenses for each man furnished
that the Burns agency performed its
part Of the agreement but that pay
ment was never made. and the agency
asked that the defendants he required
10 pay the bill. amounting to the sum
of s2.3s3.9c.
~. II
in 1917 some OF the members were of
The opinion that detectives should be
employed to assist them in their labors
and disclosed their wishes in this re.
gard to Judge McFadden. the presid
ing Judge. Accordingly contract
was made with the agency for certain
IF its detectives. who appeared on the
seene In due course. but not \ single
conviction was obtained as result
of their detecting" although the size
{ the bill would indicate that thej
were not sparing of expense In that
respect. Subsequently District Judge
McFadden made an order directing
county Treasurer Bath TO pay the
amount of the bill out OF the county
funds. which he promptly refused IL
do on tho ground that his attorney
advised min, that the bill was illegal
There were soine threats OF contempt
Proceedings against Mr.. Bath for his
defiant refusal Ia obey a court ordec.
but no change In his attitude was
noticeable NOR was cny contempt pro
coedlng started.
Then tho bill was presented 10 the
county commissioners for payment.
backed up by the approval and order
II Judge McFadden. but Immediately
that conscientious objector." Anthony
Turiei:. was ready with a series of OBJ
iections as long as the moral law. and
the bill was laid On the table for ten
lays Before the time was up Mr.
Iurich filed suit against the commits
sioners. with Attorney Foreman act
ing as his counsel. asking for an in
Junction restraining taem from paying
the bill Thcreupon another order
was made by Judge McFadden for the
payment of the sum. which was served
on Sheriff McLean By the Judge in
person. and the sheriff was ordered to
deduct the amount from any county
funds that he might have in his pos
session. After consulting his bonds
men and his attorney Sheriff Mclean
likewise refused to comply with rhe
courts order. Having failed in all ef-
forts to get the money out of the pub =
lie funds. the agency sued the three
members of the grand Jury who had
guaranteed the bill Judge Taoer now
holds that the entire transaction was
illegal. thus sustaining the positions
II County Treasurer Bath. She rin Me
Lean and Attorney Zurich. The de-
eislon of Judge Taber. made November
20, IL as follows:
The main issue OF law presented
hy the demurrer to the complaint IN
this action deserved and has received
the most careful consideration OF the
court.
Notwithstanding learned eounseis
statements that they had been unable
TO find case exactly In point, nave
made an Independent and diligent
search for such a case. extending TO
the last issues of the advance sheets
Of the Reporter system. The search.
"a was 10 BE- expected. has been a
vain one.
whether or not the contract al
legged In the complaint is Illegal DC
pends upon whether It binds the
parties, or either of them, TO do some
thing which is against the public
policy of the state OF Nevada some
thing which has a tendency 10 be IN
furious to the public good
"'ro one who is familiar with the
criminal law and procedure Of Nevada
and has had many years eNperieno"
in it's practical workings the mere
statement OF the contract in question
is sufficient to raise serious doubt
as to it's validity. But ! have endeaN :
ored to keep In mind the principle that
public policy itself demands that the
freedom of contract between men oil
full age and competent understanding
should not lightly be interfered with
by the courts.
There has not been time since
took this question up for consideration
that my mind has been free from
doubt as to it's correct solution. Bu'
while that doubt still exists my bes'
Judgment is that this contract cannot
be enforced. III there were reason
able hope of clearing up the doubt by
further thought or investigation
should not now determine the oues.
t.r~nt tlx a n