Show i IMPORTANT I DECISIONS f Judge Bartch Holds That Cahoon Was Not in Contempt THEY CANNOT SUBPOENA COUXTY COURT OAX HUT CANNOT DELEGATE THAT POWER I I Motion to Quash Indictments Against thes AHiscil haunt Box Stutter I Overrujeii A Person i Xot Ooiti I lieteiit to Act i a Grand Juror I Who has Served as Such Within One Year i The most important of several decisions I handed down by Judge Bartch yesterday I was that in regard to A E Cahoon the j witness who refused to testify before the j county court as z committee of investiga i tion in the mater of the alleged frauds upon the county in the paving of State road The court held that Cahoon was not In contempt sustained the demurrer to the petition to have him committed for contempt con-tempt and ordered him discharged Statement of the Case Judge Bartch in giving his decision said that in the proceedings before the territorial Supreme court in January in regard to the validity of county warrants issued during 1893 and 1S94 the Supreme court held that to a certain amount those warrants were valid and that it appeared that about 590000 of those warrants were i not a proper charge against the county The county court then resolved itself into a committee to Investigate to determine I I deter-mine what portion of said warrants were properly Issued and to investigate the i I acts of the former county court In relation l I rela-tion thereto While conducting the inquiry in-quiry the county court subpoenaed Ca hoon to appear before them and give such Information a he possessed In regard to j I the furnishing of material to macadamize the State road Cahoon at first failed to respond to the subpoena and when he did he refused to testify claiming that the county court sitting as an Investigating committee had no Jurisdiction to compel him to do so Cannot Delegate Its Power Judge Bartch continuing said he was I of opinion that the county court could I not resolve Itself Into such a committee could not delegate the power of examining examin-ing witnesses which was conferred by law upon the county court to a committee tee appointed by that body The statute under which the present proceeding was had was quoted by the court as follows Whenever the county court of any county shall deem it necessary neces-sary or important to examine any personas person-as a witness upon any subject or matter within the jurisdiction ot such court or I to examine any officer of the county in relation to the discharge ot his official duty as to the receipt or disbursement by him of any money or concerning the posSession pos-session or disbursement by him of any property belonging to the county or to Use inspect or examine any books accounts counts vouchers or documents in the possession pos-session of such officer or other person or under his control or relative to the af fairs or Interests of the county the pro bate Judge shall issue a subpoena County Court Can Subpoena I will be observed that under this statute the county court had the power whenever it deemed it necessary or important im-portant to examine any person as a wit ness upon a subject or matter within its jurisdiction a such court The statute seemed to be explicit as to this but he found no authority anywhere that would permit the court to delegate the power of subpoenaing and examining witnesses to any other body or person I would appear ap-pear then that if this statute was not in derogation of the organic act at this territory the county court itself was the proper body to make such examination and they could not go outside of what the statute said Under the proceedings therefore a instituted in this case he thought the witness could not be held in contempt of court for refusing to answer Their Duty To Investigate The question now recurred as to whether wheth-er the county court itself could make such examination and inquire Into the acts of the former county court Coun sol for tho petitioner maintained that I when the county court made an examination examina-tion of an account or bill which had been properly presented passed upon i and ordered the warrant to issue that it became be-came res judicata and that a subsequent court could not inquire into i even though i was erroneous and improperly Issued He could not agree with counsel on that point He thought that in tho case of fraud collusion or error when this was shown especially before final payment of the warrant so issued the succeeding county court had the right to correct those errors and he did not consider con-sider that the statute here was in conflict con-flict with any act of Congress or the organic or-ganic act I was proper and binding upon up-on all parties and when the county court instituted proceedings of this kind especially under the showing that was made In this instance of a large number of warrt having been apparently issued is-sued without authority of law he wa of opinion that they still had the right of examining bills passed upon by their predecessors bis deessr and of making a full and thorough thor-ough examination into those several questions Indeed he thought It was their duty to do so |