Show u UIIItU COUNTY MUST SETTLE ders Nut uam Andrews Furniture Warrant J Held to Be Legal RE Tol I AUERBACH WINS HIS SUIT Also Ordj Ie giIneu Dhe Supreme Court Holds That Although Officers yj Al-though the Contract Was Corruptly rious eiJ A Itt Entered Into Subsequent Actions onists to Made tho Warrant a Legal Lien i1rtySQvEIl County Must Now 4 Pay Aucrbach ill Sail 3 814700 With InterestOgden Case eviowed Reversed Judgment Against Martha racArthur 1 Mar-tha Washington Company Affirmed 1 of Gensi Lla The Supreme court handed down an Gua ncra1Iti opinion yesterday in the Bounty warrant rn l war-rant case of S H Aucrbach vs Salt ns o r di tllal o Lake county appellant In which Mr I nclUd Auerhnch sued to recover 15000 on a I nQtrIon 1i warrant which he purchased from Mart Mar-t lISts ha I tin Hayken agent of A H Andrews ported it Co In 1S91 1 Ion < to hy The suit was the outgrowth of the or the rote bribery charges made against the Selectmen tion Guamum Se-lectmen of Salt Lake county in connection of r itt con-nection with the purchase of furniture Ion was h for the Joint building After the warrant I Province 1 d war-rant In question had been repudiated IgorrotC3 toc t 1 by the county Mr Aucrbach began his suit and the county answered by ETINGS1 EETINGs setting out that the Selectmen entered have bEenti into an unlawful agreement with the experience b agent of Andrews Co by l which the olitlcai 0tCdITh mtf amount charged for the furniture was sses it t b orm rom ri more than double its actual value and horn nse iti that the Selectmen were to be paid 25 ring perv per cent of the gross amount of the lberie5 l Sua contracts ° n and iV1 CHARGE AGAINST MORRIS 1Qt tes which 1 bl ty stands ft1 It Was also alleged that Selectman Joseph h i iflterestA Jo-seph R Morris was paid 5000 by tho ng the me agent of Andrews Co in pursuance arty declaiiij of the conspiracy It was also prayed that the county be allowed to deduct bel prison 7640 from Mr Auerbachs hill as the ose at MatE furniture for which the 15000 warrant was Issued was only worth 7360 VIEWED The lower court found that the contract con-tract with Andrews Co was the result panied by fcl seventh H4 1 stilt of a corrupt agreement entered it t Into by some of the Selectmen with v on tho LfiJ cQ the companys agent and that the bribe All the cc TXas paid It was also held however nost for t or that Mr Auerbach purchased the warrant nent I vas KI rant from tho company for 11700 in the rcgltcsjl I good faith but that the county while < 3er and Gal repudiating the warrant the year following address coi fol-lowing Its Issuance elected to retain men on thfti and use the furniture and at no time dgment ca1 offered to return it or to repay to Mr h a hoartjj Aucrbach the 14700 which he had given i1 giv-en for the warrant It being held that Ball for hi the county upon discovering the fraud More ibul should have offered to return the fur > f the oflkril jiiture to Andrews Co or to have paid its value and that Mr Auerbach was a purchaser In good faith Judgment umt Judg-ment was rendered in his favor Apollo plawl OPINION OF THE COURT marked 61 The opinion of the Supreme court I f 1 Music 31 which is written by Chief JusticeS Justice-S Kartell and concurred in by Justices Minor and Baskln affirms the Judgment hi I rendered below Justice Bartch points out That conceding one ofhcal con-ceding that the contracts of March and cndnrs1or May the ones under consideration tainted not only with the most reprehensible repre-hensible but with criminal conduct and > stay in It acts of some members of the County 4 Ejis bouj court were vpld l still It Is not a necessary ago Tlr nec-essary sequence that by subsequent proceedings and acts of that court of which some of the members were actIng act-Ing In good faith and were innocent of the fraud and corruption in relation to the furniture the same subject matter mat-ter of the fraudulent transaction a liability lia-bility on the part of the county could not be created in favor of an Innocent holder of a warrant Holding that this was done and that 5 through the failure of the county to rescind the contract the liability became be-came complete the moment that furniture furni-ture to the value of 15000 had been delivered de-livered Upon this view the Judgment 4w is affirmed |