Idaho County free press. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho Territory) 1886-current, 1922-03-09
COURT
IN HIGHWAY
RULING

The Idaho state supreme court hal
reaffirmed its position in regard Il
the removal of the commissioner,
of the Twin Falls highway dis
trict, in handing down an opinion
saying the order of the district court
removing the commissioners fronl
office and ordering them each to pa.
$500 fine, must hold.
The court, on Nov. l, 1921, af
firmed the lower tribunals decision
and the defendant commissioners
asked for a rehearing. 1t was grant
ed, and the courts decision simply
reaffirms its position last fall.
The original opinion was written by
Chief Justice John G.. Rice and con
CURED in by Associate Justices Will
liam A. Lee and Robert n Dunn. JUS
tice Alfred Bulge wrote dissenting
opinion, which was cOncurred in by
Justice Charles p. Mccarthy. In the
final opinion Justices Rice and Dun,
adhere to their views expressed lass
fall. Justice Lee concurred specially.
Justice Bulge concured specially in
part and dissented specially in part.
His opinion was concurred in by JUS
tiee Mccarthy.
CUSTER PROCEEDINGS
The action was brought in the dis
trict court by Il. f. Walton to have the
commissioners removed from office
and pay the statutory fine of $500.
None of the commissioners is now
in office, and the only way the opinion
will affect them is that a $500 penalty
viii be extracted from each.
In the more than fifty causes of
action, it is charged that the commits
sioners refused and neglected to make,
file and publish certain reports pertain
ing to the condition of the highway
work in the district with regard to
maintenance and new construction.
The information also alleged that it
was the duty of the commissioners to
pass on all claims against the district
before they were paid, and that they
refused and neglected to do this.
Another cause for action was that
the treasurer of the district did not
take out sufficient additional bond as
increased funds came under his con-
trol to comply with provisions of the
Idaho law relating to bonds of treas
urers.
NOT MERE TECHNICALITIES
In Judge Lees specially concurring
opinion, he says:
Not every infraction or departure
from the strict letter of the law will
subject an officer to removal under
this statute, for the law does not con-
Germ itself with trifes, nor does it re-
lire degree of efficiency and exact
ness in the performance of official
luties that can not be reasonably COM
Dlied with in the exercise of ordinary
,are and diligence. But where there
has been a plain departure from the
of the statute, as is
shown in this case, the official can not
escape the consequences of his wrong
iul action by claim that he acted in
rood faith, without any evil or corrupt
motive"
Justice Bulge, however, in dissent
ng in part, says that in his view GER
ain of the state laws are wOrded i'll
uch a way as to eXonOrate the conf
from blame in connection
With the charge of failure and neglect
% make, file and publish the reports
# the district.
QUICK TO ALLOW CLAIMS
1t was charged against the commits
toner's that claims against the district
we're allowed and paid before the
'oard acted upon them. The specific
harge was that the president and sec
etary paid the bills before the board
flowed them. In commenting on this
Justice Bulge said:
CHAD they refused or neglected 20
yet, they would have been guilty of
on-feasance. They may be guilty of
nis-feasance, in that they did not do a
awful act in proper manner or,
hey may be guilty of mal-feasance in
he doing of an act wholly wrongful
nd unlawful, yet having acted, they
would not be guilty of non-feasance.
f they are guilty of mis-feasance or
they are entitled to a
ury trial-not to summary removal in
he manner sought in this action-and
his constitutional right should not be |
enied them. -