Show 5 V THE OPEION by the Supreme Court in the case of Wilkin U 8 V com mifsioner aiainstIron Oounty Ttich we publish eleewhern Is important and settles I1 queatSb nfclh atrIairbeen discussed more or lees lor omayeara past and been in a messurfr threatening threaten-ing The court holds that the counties are not responsible or liable fjr the fees of Supreme Coort com miiiionera Wilkin as commissioner for the Second District eat ai a magistrate in the examination of a person charged with crime com muted in Iron County Ho presented V pre-sented his bill for services to the I county which refused to pay it V He then brought suit at law and Judge Borcman gave him judgment forlha Amount of the bill The county appealed ap-pealed and the Supreme Court has now reversed the judgment of the lower court The amount involved in this caie > was email butbad the judgmentof Borernans JJGurt been affirmed there would have1 been arid a-rid npontho county treasuries that might have proven ditastraus to the public funds We may not estimate what this opinion has saved to the counties though we know of bills similar to Wilkins which were patiently awaiting the result of this auit If commissioners were permitted per-mitted to draw their fees from the counties we would soon note a multiplication multi-plication of examinations before there officials with tho corresponding piling up of cot The suggestion in the opinion that the expenses should be paid out ot tba territorial l treasury will do no harm So long as courts are ran the way they have keen It 1 Is notprobable that legislature will make many appropriations that can be gobbled up for foolish or malicious prosecutions Altogether wo regard the opinion in tho Welkins suit ai one of great value to the territory at large i |