| Show TEST CASE proceedings in court affecting them of deep interest here baa a couple of test cases in c art over appointive city officers one of which is of interest to the people of provo the other is a con teat by an appointee of the new mayor confirmed by the council the old official who aims to hold over by reason of the provisions of the constitution of the state and cites the fol lorinz section in support of bis con tin tion section 10 of the eche alb to the constitution provides that all officers civil aad military now holding their offices and appointments in this territory by authority of law shall continue to hold and exorcise their ren spectre offices and appointments until superseded superceded super ceded under thia constitution the court holds that this section must be read in connection with section 2 of which provides that all laws of the territory of utah now in force not repugnant to this constitution shall remain in force until they expire bv their own limitation or are altered or repealed by the legislature which the constitutional convention inserted in the batata constitution for the express purpose of avoiding the unnatural and unsafe state of affairs which utah would otherwise have fondd herself in on the day of adamie eion without laws and without officers ot any kind in the other case Board holds the office of city auditor by appointment of two years ago in january hume waa nominated by the present mayor in january for that office bat bis nomination was not confirmed by the coun cil in so far as beardsleyy Beards leya right to hold over under section 10 of the schedule of the state constitution that right is denied oy judge in the abaye ruling on the other grounds alleged as giving Ee ardsley a right to hold over viz that humes appoint ment wm not confirmed bv the council the court affirms as he did in his ruling on demurrer that the office of city auditor would become vacant upon the expiration of the two years for which be was appointed and that no authority to hold over exists under our under and that the mere fact that a successor had not been appointed or would make no difference where the incumbent of an office lor a definite term has no authority to hold over the failure or neglect to appoint or elect bis successor detill leaves his office vacant and ears that a judgment of ouster must be de blared by this decision the question right to bold office ia not yet adjudicated and this will come upon subsequent proceedings it will be remembered however that when the case was up on demurrer judge expressed his opinion to be that thelah would always recognize somebody in the office and that hame had authority to proceed with the functions of tho office in anes tion of course both of these cases are to be appealed and as many of our beet attorneys hold that judge Eo lopps ruling is not gool law at the present stage we cannot accept thia ruling aa a precedent on which to base settlement of of provos difficulty over its city attorney it judge Eo lopps rulings are good law J W N cannot hold over as city attorney for pronoun der his appointment of two years ago but can and must perform the functions of the office under his last by mayor holdbrook and it would seem that in any event mr ia right in bis present iland that he is responsible on hia bonds to city for the conduct of the chaira oi his office pending the settlement of the difficulty fi city attorney cannot af lord to and rightly and justly will not at quietly down and do nothing on the strength of newella resolution introduced and adopted at last session of the council he must attend to the cites cases already in court and attend to any matters that may corns up the taxpayers of the city demand it of him and will bold him responsible on his bonds if he fails to do this his plain doty |
