The Miller press. [volume] (Miller, S.D.) 190?-current, 1922-09-14

The following opinion on the dis
truction Of weeds was received from
the States Attorney:
To The Hon. Chairman and Board of
County Commissioners:
|. In Re. Destruction of Weeds.
Revised Codes Sec. 10401 provide
that owner of land outside of city or
town AUDITING on public highway,
shall cut or destroy all weeds to CEN
ter OF Highway within time fixed by
Board of Supervisors.
The supervisors may fix time at any
regular meeting. Notice must be Civ
en- by one publication in paper. If
owner fail, the Board must serve per-
sonal notice upon owner or occupant
of land, or mailing to last known adj
dress.
Section 10402, Provides that in fail
ure of occupant to cut or destroy
weeds, it becomes duty of Supervisors
or County Commissioners to employ
some person to Immediately cut or
destroy the weeds at a rate fixed by
the Board.
Section 1O403, Provides for assess
ment and collection of costs for above.
Section 10404, requires no Notice to
owners of unoccupied land, other than
by publication and mailing to last adj
dress.
On Private Premises.
Section 10405 provides for destruc-
ton of noxious weeds.
Section 10406 provides duties of
Supervisors in organized Township or
County Commissioners in un%organized
Townships in re-giving Notice, etc.
Section 10407 provides for compen-
sation.
Section 1040S provides for assess
ment and collection of cost and ex-
pense.
1t should be kept in mind hat Sec.
10409 requires that Notice shall be
published in the official papers during
the month of April, to the effect that
! the provisions of Chapter 8 will be
enforced. ."
You will note that Chapter Nine
consists of Articles one and two from
Sections 10401 to 10410 inclusive.
/ Chapter 1913 of Session Laws of 1919
provides that on, and after the selec-
ton of the Trunk Highway System,
each county shall adequately main
tain the whole of the Trunk Highway
| System lying within the County.
Respectfully submitted,
John Pusey,
States Attorney.
The following report of States At
torney was received:
REPORT OF STATES ATTORNEY
Miller, South Dakota, July II, 1922
| II, thn IIAn ThairY,nn nn1 Dnor 81 nf
County Commissioners of Hand
County, South Dakota:
Criminal Causes
State VS.. Paul Arnold. Defendant
still under parole to his father at
Greenfield, Indiana. Monthly reports
show that his conduct is excellent.
State VS.. Fred Hare. Charge selling
intoxicating liquor. Tried at the June
1922 term of court, and defendant
found not guilty.
State VS.. Ray Fisher. Charge sell
ing intoxicating liquor. Tried at June
1922 term of court. Jury after de-
l%iberating twenty-four hours disagree
ed. Case noted for trial 1922 Decem
Der Term of Court.
State VS.. Elmer Daubol. Charge
Manufacturing Intoxicating Liquor
Plead guilty. Fine $25O.00, payable
November 1, 1922 and costs. Jail sen
tence three months from November l,
1922.
State VS.. Peter Lummel, guilty
Fine 100000 payable December 1, 1922
Jail sentence sixty days from Deem
Der /, 1922.
State VS.. Chris Comment. Guilty,
Fine $4,000 and costs, payable July
10, 1922. Jail sentence two months.
Suspended until Dec. 1922 Term of
Court. Owing to the condition OF
mind of Defendants mother, l do not
believe that the Court will enforce the
sentence at the December Term.
State VS.. Tracy l.. Almond. Charge
Grand Larceny. Court accepted plea