The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1926-03-25

rendered In civI. actions during
February, 1926. s373.:5.
Report Of the Sheriff Of cotlec-
ton Of delinquent personal prop
erty taxes, $i06.S2.
Report Of the Clerk Of Court Of
fees collected during tho month Ut
February. 1925, $l6s.00.
Report Of the Register OF Deeds
OF fees collected during the month
Of January, 1929, $30S.25.
Report Of the Coroner in Andrew
Anderson case received and filed.
Depository bond Of the Sterling
kota. for 100000. covering moneys
on checking account. approved.
I The following resolution was In.
troducctS by Commissioner Swan.
son and seconded by Commissioners
10 The board OF County commis.
IN 1919, while States Attorney Of
BurleiEh County. 1 consulted with
the District Court and with this
Board regarding the hiring OF do
tectives for the investigation Of
crime. and It was agreed that same
should be employed and several men
Durncs International Detective Ag.
tectlvcs I communicated With sail:
Agency and stated that / desired
only operators who could and would
take the witness stand provided
court proceedings were had from
the evidence obtained from said de.
tsctives and the said Agency stated
would and could take, the witness
stand. and that they would be pros
duccd when required. The said
Agency stated that they desired that
!! agree to SEQ that payment would
be made and that have two men
sign that payment would be made
therefor. agreed personally to see
that all fees were paid and obtained
two others to make said agreement.
namely, Edward q. Patterson, the
Chairman Of the board Of County
Commissioners. and John F. Fort, 7
representing to. them that the SER
Agency for the County. That the
said Detective Agency knew that
said services were to be for the pub
Tic and that the hiring was not done
~ mo personally, but as States At
torney FOR. the County. and that Mr..
rattcrson. Mr.. Fort and myself
signed said guarantees Of payment
the said detectiNes were employed
and the bill was presented, and
there were some leases pending In
which would desire, the attendance
OF said detectives, or some Of them,
I presented the bin to the Board Of
County Commissioners and asked
them to pay the sum OF $9Sa.e9. but
ance Of said bill until the final dis
posal OF the cases pending: that said
sum was paid which left due somc-
thing like. or about the sum Of
&457.69: that thereafter 1 made de-
manl upon the said Detective Agen-
cy for the attendance ct the said
operators. or some Of them, and was
Informed by the said Agency that
formed the said detective agency
that fwOuld advise against tho pay.
mcnt Of the balance of the said bill
and did so and Informed the said
agency that the only way they
could recover would be. by bringing
an action: that they presented the
times and that always gave them
the same answer: TINT said employ
mcnt was made and work done by
said agency In the year 1919 and
that no action was brought until
February. 1926; that said action Is
brought by F. E. AfcCurdy. as at
torncy for the said defective agency.
Al.H:urtly. well knowing that the
said detcctives were. employed for
the benefit Of and, 6y. the County
Of Durlcigh. and through myself AZ
States Attorney only. and we'll
know that any money. recOvered
in said action will eventually come
out OF the treasury OF Burleigh
- q I'll i
F. Fort and myself having no per-
sorlal interest in the employment
OF said detectives buty said employ
mcnt being made for Durlcigh coun :
~: that II. In the present suit, judy,
mcnt should be obtained against
myself. or Z. 6. Patterson or J. F.
Fort; suit WOULD ,s ., then be brought pr
Burleigh County: that a multiplicity
Of suits should be avoided, but thcro
IL no way to compel the said F. E.
McCurcy, or the said Detective
Agency. to make Rurlcigh County a
party to said suit except by an ap-
Dlication to and an order by tho
District Court.
tice of the claim q Tho said Dctcc-
tive Agency s6pI5d BE determined
in one action. and can be dctcrm-
ined in one actiol.if Burleigh Coun i.
~ Is mado a defendant In 81 id ac-
ticn with the other parties named
that am Of the opinion that there
Is soTa defensc e s ssid act sn: 1f
not keet their agreement. certain
actions not being able TO DC
brought. ami actions that were
brought. not being able to be pressed
for triafsbScauSG OF the absence Ct
material witnesses, the said detcc-