Gunnison news-champion., 1924-01-18
CONDENSED REPORT Of
SUPREME COURT DECISION
Confined from first pagsJ

Continued from first pags1
The second highway district Of Colo
rado includes numerous counties in
the western portion Of the state and
among them the county of Gunnison.
The highway advisory board Is en-
powered to designate those highway
which are constructed and maintained
by the state. In adjusting expendi-
lures thereon, Il il the duty Of the
board TO receive and consider the rec
concentrations Of county commission
err. Under federal legislation and
regulations certain main arteries Of
traffic in the state. designated ~
primary highways" receive . per
centage Of their maintenance cost
from the federal government. Run
ming thru the western portion Of Colo
rado II the "Rainbow Route" section
Of tYanscontinental road. Gunnison
county, one Of the chief bene6ciaries
Of tourist travel, Was interested In
having . portion Of her highways In
that route ~ 20 modified declared .
primary highway. thus throwing the
principal stream Of traffic thru the
town Of Gunnison. the county seat, and
inxuring state maintenance and FEEDER.
al aid. On these and related sub
jects there was considerable diversity
Of opinion among the county commits
sioners Of the second district. A bet
ter understanding Of the highway
problems confronting the sections
seemed indispensable to harmonious
action. To that end the county COM
missioners Of Gunnison county invited
the commissioners Of the second dis
trict to convene At Gunnison and auth
orized arrangements for their enter
tainment and refreshments. The
meeting was accordingly held, and the
result seems TO have been entirely
satisfactory. There il no material
dispute rs to the commissioner auth
oriIation for refreshment and enter
tainment, their allowance of the bills
therefor. and the payment Of the same
by the county. save Is to the single
question Of intoxicating liquor. On
that subject Il is the contention Of the
people that such authorization, allow
ance and payment, included approx
mately $4,000 for whiskey. II is the
contention Of defendants that liquor
WAS furnished by Whalen, Knowles
and the county clerk; that SO far as
Knowles and Whalen were concerned.
their action in the premise was
personal and individual; that neither
A. commissioners nor otherwise did
they authorize the purchase Of
liquor on account Of Gunnison
County nor knowingly allow any
claims therefor; and that the county
clerk made up the bills, concealed
therein liquor claims under such des-
ignations as conveying passengers"
and "miscellaneous expense" and 20
Slipped them over" on the commits
sioners. Both positions are supported
by evidence.
The principal points here urged are:
THE indictment charges no viola-
ton Of official duty. 2-The statute
in question has no application TO one
not in Office at the time Of the filing
Of the Indictment. 3-The court err
roneously instructed the jury as to the
meaning Of the terms "willfully'' and
"corruptly." defendants request
ed instruction, No. 80 was erroneous
~ refused. 5-The admitted allow
ance Of claims was not shown to be in
violation Of the statute, the evidence
was insufficient to support the verdict
and the motion for new trial should
have been granted.
Discussing the first four errors, the
judges agreed that they were not
weighty and could not be considered
as sufficient to warrant overturning
the decision Of the district court. How
ever, concerning the fifth, the court
was unanimous in asserting that 1t
contained grave error, and was COM
pletely fatal to the case. The decision
reads: