Plentywood herald. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1908-current, 1927-12-30
Co. Commissioners INDICATED
Decision By Judge Hartman
Continued from page one)

collected by the defendant at tn,
times and for the services and ex
penses therein set out. The evidenc,
further shows that for more thai
two years, and to serve the conven
lent arrangement and transaction O.
the business of the Board of Count,
Commissioners relating to roads, tn,
county had been divided by the
Board into three districts, and tina
each member of the board has beer
assigned to a district, and that il
was thereby made the duty of each
member to look after and take charge
of all road and bridge matters in his
district, and TO make necessary anc
proper repairs to roads and bridges
and culverts therein, and to make re
port thereof to the Board; that un
der and by virtue of that authority
Of the Board, the defendant %Iverson.
Mt the times specified in the accusa-
ticn, performed the work indicated in
the accusation, in viewing, inspecting
and repairing roads and bridges
within the county; that at subsequent
meetings of the Board he made oral
report to the Board of the work per-
formed by him, and that, while in
most cases, no formal order was en-
tered by the Board, or by the Clerk,
/ n the minutes, approving the same,
the bills for his services and ex-
penses in performing such work were
duly allowed, approved, and paid by
the Board.
The evidence further conclusively
shows that the County of Sheridan
received full value for the moneys so
paid to defendant on account of
such services and expenses, and that
such services were rendered and
money expended in good faith and in
the honest belief by defendant that
they constituted legal and proper
charges against the County; and that
defendant in so charging and collect
ing said sums, acted in good faith.
without any corrupt motive.
By reason of the complete absence
Of any testimony showing a corrupt
motive by defendant, / probably
should have sustained defendants
motion for non-suit, but, not having
done so, and having heard the proof
showing good faith and lack of cor
rupt motive on the part of defendant,
and the full value received by the
county for the work performed by de-
PENDANT, a decision and judgment for
he defendant is inevitable.
1t is apparent from the testimony
OF the witnesses Madison, County
Clerk and Recorder, and French, and
defendant lverson, that the minutes
and records of the Board were very
loosely and imperfectly kept, that
the Clerk, whose duty it was to make
full, true and complete minute en-
tries of all reports and proceedings
presented to the Board, seldom, if
ever, made any minute entry of the
oral reports of the Commissioners as
y the road work done by them, or as
Q any action taken thereon by the
Board, save and except the action of
the Board in allowing and approving
laims charged against the County
for such services.
In the absence Of such minute or
record entry, parole testimony was
leceived or the trial, under the au-
thority of McKennon VS.. Reid, PSI
Pac. 548.
Oral evidence respecting such re-
ports all tends to show that at the
sesslons of the Board following the
performance of the work, defendant
and another commissioner, French,
talked over or discussed the road and
bridge work in their respective dis
fricts with the Board, advising the
Board of the work done, and present
"a their claims for compensation for
the same, which claims were allowed
and subsequently paid. While that
method Of receiving and approving
such reports is irregular and not to
be commended, ] hold that the payment
Of the claims after knowledge of the
nature and character of the work
done, cures such irregularities and
substantially amounts TO approval
and acceptance by the Board of the
work done, where it also appears, as
it does n this case, hat the County
received full value for the work done
for it, and that the defendant and
French, another commissioner. acted
in good faith and without any cor
lupt motive.
| have carefully examined the able
and exhaustive briefs of counsel for
both parties, and the authorities cit
ed by them in support of their re-
spective contentious. IN the case of
the State exrel Paige VS.. District
Court, 81 Montana, 332.169 Pacific.
l1S, the late Mr.. Justice Holloway
delivered the opinion of the court.
and in differentiating between Sec
ton 9006 R. C. 1907 and Section
11702 R. c. 1921, he used this lang
Under Section 90O6, a county COM
missioner was liable to removal from
for collecting illegal fees. If
the bare fact appear that, acting bv
virtue of his office, the commissioner
had collected fees not authorized bv
law, but one result could follow.
namely, his removal from office. He
could offer no excuse. His ignorance
of the law, his good faith, or his
honest belief that he was entitled to
fees availed him nothing, neither
could he be heard to say that the
had received full value in the
services for which the fees were
charged. y = ~" /,
After referring to the Statute as
amended hV Section 11700 &c o,~