Plentywood herald. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1908-current, 1927-12-30
EN-

an authority in this case, as both O
them were brought and decided un
der Section 9006 r. c. 1907.
As To what constitutes a corrup
motive or a corrupt act, the rule i
aud down IN Corpus Juris, Volum,
4 A, page 1929, as follows:
"An act is said to be corrupt o.
eorruptly done when the chief mo
tive is a design to acquire or caus,
q gain of a %pecuniary nature; wher
t is done for an unlawful profit. Al
| object is corrupt when it has lost it.
riginal soundness, integrity or pur
ity.'
Section 1918, Revised Codes OF
Montana, 1921, reads:
"The word "corruptly" imports 8
Tongful design to acquire or cause
ONE pecuniary or other advantage
, the person guilty of the act OF
mission referred to, or to some other
oerson."
Bearing upon the same question,
he court, in State IS. Kennedy kan
as), 10S Pac. S37, said:
There is no evidence whatever
hat the appropriations enumerated
we're corruptly made. Corruption in
he of the statute quoted in
olives the intentional disregard of
NV from improper motives. The de-
endant must have purposed to vio-
ate his official duty, defraud the
aounty by Incorporating its funds,
md ecure to himself or to someone
.W1cn ,rn1at~f,,1 rat, \ 4
When proceedings are brought to
emove q county officer and the court
.nds that such officer acted honestly
n making such charges against his
rounty, and honestly believed at the
ime he presented his claim for al
owance, and when he collected the
anne, that such charges were legal,
It is tn. same, that such charges were
egal, it is error to remove him from
tfice, and enter judgment against
him for the penalty provided by said
section. Even if, therefore, the
harges made by the defendant for
services and for mileage in connec-
ion with bridge repairs had been il
legal, his innocence, good faith and
integrity would protect him from re-
noval on the ground of corruption.
The same rule applies to other APP
preparations of money. The defen-
dant presented itemized and verified
claims for salary and mileage show
ng the days on which he rendered
services and the number of miles
travelled in each month.
50 The state brought the action,
md the burden rested upon it to
1rove corruption on the part of the
defendant sufficient to warrant his
removal from office. The law pre-
umed he regulated his conduct ac-
eording to his oath until the con-
rary is made to appear by proof. He
not called upon to justify him
self until something evidencing cor
upton was offered. If he did not
onsume the time or travel the miles
which he charged, the state
'hould have shown the facts. The
roof offered had no tendency of that
lind. Aside from mere presumption,
however, the defendants official
was fully established.
In a number of instances bridge
oills were paid which had not been
certified according to law. The vouch-
rs were approved by the county sur
'eyor and by the auditing board, and
blank forms for veriication, which
he board provided, were attached, |
,ut not filled out. The omission of
notifications upon the bills
7as simply overlooked. Such occa-
ional departures from the statute
elating to the allowance of claims,
securing as they did through mere
nadvertance and without wrongful
intent, and under circumstances ex-
losing the county to no imposition or
injury, do not, of course, constitute
eruption as it has been defined"
The reasoning of the Court in the
Kansas case supra appears to me to
e unanswerable. 1t was made with
eference to a state of facts similar
o the facts in the ease at bar, and
Presenting the identical question
is presented in this case as
ontrolling and determinative.
If the simple failure of the Coun-
y Commissioners or Clerks to strict
Y and technically comply with the
aw in making entries of road inspec-
ion on the minutes of the board, is
0 be held to constitute a corrupt act
r omission for which the commits
toner's may be removed from office,
t is indeed doubtful if there is a
Commissioner in any county in the
tate, who is not subject to removal.
Under the old law (Sec. 9006 R. c..
907) such a failure was sufficient
round for the removal of a commits
Toner, but under the present law
Sec. 11702 R. C. 1921 the commits
must have acted knowingly,
nlawfully and c0rruptly before judy
lent of removal may be entered
gainst him.
As to the trip made by the defen-
ant to Billings to attend the State
of County Commissioners.
was made under the authority of
124, 1923 Session Laws, as
nended by Chapter 48, 1923 Session
TVS, from which / quote:
go y + Provided further one MEM
er of the board of county commis-
toner's may be allowed actual trans
ortation expense and per diem for
tendance upon any general meeting
z Comfy Commissioners or Assess
RS held within thu State not oftener