Show oufl I IS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL Ji c HEDJ j J Opinion Affecting Appointment of dnSl County JFrultTree Inspectors to toS Tho Supremo court handed down an S opinion yesterday holding unconstitutional Vtl unconstitution-al tho law requiring the Board County Ci 4 Commicsioneis In counties having 5COO fruit trees to appoint a county fruittree 0 Inspector from a list of three persons c i submitted bv the members of the Stato 1Lti Board of Horticulture from the district cfi In which tho county Is I situated The opinion L opin-ion was rendered In the mandamus case q of the State ex rcl J A Wright nuTnber c L of tim State Board of Horticulture vs tho County Commissioner of Weber OS I county As Weber county has more than M I 20f population the Inspector would also liavc the right to appoint as many deputies i depu-ties as he deemed necessary FV In the lower court the defendants demurred rrn de-murred and moved to quash and jUdgment p Judg-ment WOK given In their favor Chief Justice Miner who writes the Supreme L Su-preme court opinion hold with Justice cli Barlch concurring that the lower courts I action was proper and approves the judgment judg-ment cS Tho opinion holds In brief that the act 1 applies to certain particular counties to FIt the exclusion of others and Is therefore t not uniform throughout the State and h1J doC not tend to establish a uniform s > s c9t tern of county government under the supervision o pervision of tho county authorities as required U re-quired by the Constitution U The opinion as a result of the request a of counsel In the case does not pass upon tho question of whether or not the iLi County Commissioners are ministerial of iI fleeTs J5 l In a dissenting opinion however Justice I Jus-tice Baskln holds that the duly of tho ro1 Commissioners wna purely ministerial and g i that they therefore could not plead that ici tho act wan unconstitutional In a man damus proceeding In support of his view Elk ho cites tho opinion of tho court In tho j case of Thoreson vs Slate Board of Ext Ex-t 17 nmlncrs where It was held that a mln wcrlal officer could not in a mandamus Li r proceeding plead In justification of nonperformance rJ2 > non-performance that the net would violate T tho Constitution |