Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-01-21
JUDITH BASIN
DEBT LARGER
THAN STATED
New Angle of Supreme Court
Decision Swells Sums Owing
Cascade and Fergus.

+ Bridge funds amounting TO SiVD.VoV
and held by Cascade county at the
time of the creation of Judith BASIN
county cannot be considered assets ct
the county but are public funds held
in trust by the county, the state su-
preme court rules in the opinion hand
ed down December 10, 1921, affirming
the judgment signed by Judge j.: Is.
Leslie June II, 1921, in which the find
ings of the commission named to ad-
just the Indebtedness existing between
Cascade, Fergus and Judith BASIN
counties were sustained. A copy of
the opinion was received Friday BY
County Attorney w. J. Tighe:
The opinion similarly ruled that Fer
gus county road funds amounting to
S129. 600 are not assets OF that county
and also that county record books are
not county property because they can
not be sold and have no marketable
value. Considering the Interpretation
that the state supreme court has placed
on the question of what is county prop
erty. it is maintained that the commits
sion of adjusters acted enormously IN
including the bridge and road funds as
assets Of Fergus and Cascade counties
and therefore a greater debt is owing
the old counties by Judith Basin county
than that determined by the commits
sion.
Wants Action Joined
Because of this apparent error in
| the commission's report. William NJ.
Blackford, senior counsel for Fergus
county, in a letter to the firm of Nor
ris, Rhoades & Hurd. who represented
| Cascade county. advocates that the two
old counties join in an action to re-
q1ire the board of adjustment TO re-
assemble and modify their report in
conformity with the findings of the SUI
preme court. 1t is the contention of
counsel that the withdrawal of the
bridge funds as assets of the Cascade
county would increase the indebted
ness of Judith Basin to this county
by between $1,000 and $4,000. The
commission decided that $4,000 was
due Cascade county and that approx
mately S25O.O0O was due Fergus coun-
ty. The increase in Indebtedness
would proportionately be greater IN
respect to Fergus county.
| When the commission. composed OF
r. G. Poland, B. p McNair and Y. +.
Baroch, made their report, with Bar
och dissenting. Judith Basin county re-
fused to accept it as an accurate state
ment of the obligations existing be-
tween the new and the old counties.
Judith Basin county instituted proceed
ings to secure writ of mandate TO
compel the board to reconvene and
correct certain alleged errors but the
proceedings were dismissed by Judge
Leslie An appeal was then taken to
the supreme court.
Want Bridges Included
Judith Basin county raised objection
to the action of the commission in ex-
Guiding the First avenue north ano
Tenth street bridges from the assets
of the county and dissatisfaction was
also aroused by the classification OF
county record books as public prop
erty. Like objections were raised II
respect to the S35O.0OO issue of roat
tended by Judith Basin county thai
the bridges could not be considered
public property because they were no.
in use at the time of the creation OF
the new county. A reduction III the
amount of the indebtedness established
by the commission was demanded OF
the basis of this contention.
In defining the term. county prop
erty," the supreme court went bacl
to early day interpretations. Count!
property, according to the opinion, i
property that a county can hold ant
sell; highway or bridge is not count,
and funds held by the county for thu
purpose of building roads or bridge
are not public funds, the county actin'
only as an agent in expending them
The application of this definition to, thu
facts in the case involving the thre'
counties, made it clear that the judg
ment of the lower court must be at
firmed the opinion says. The opinion
was signed by all members of the su
preme bench.
The remittitur. or return on the ap
peal in affirmation of Judge Leslie
decision. has been filed in the offic
of Clerk of the Court Alex Remneas
The memorandum shows the costs Q
the appeal to have amounted to $1,000