OCR Text |
Show DEPUTIES turn omsioti Findings of F:urth District ( ourt A re Affirmed Fy Supreme Court ; Costs To Jle Home Jiy Defendants. Tho Utah county commissioners' commis-sioners' D'iKht to dismiss appointive ap-pointive officers without the consent of the principal making mak-ing the appointment, is denied de-nied in a decision handed down by tho supreme court Wednesday. Comt Vpli'Kl The finding of the high court as MHK-n ny Jud;jv J. Siraup upholds I he decision nf Judgi; A. V. Watkins -: tlu Fourlh district court in the (:;;( of Uaryl Fowler, deputy treas-ii) treas-ii) er; (ieoi gn I avis and C. A. Cnali-i, deputy sheriff vs. J. W. Gill-man, Gill-man, A. O. Snujol and Charles H. While, as the bun id of county commissioners, com-missioners, and Amnion Till tie. county auditor. The order of Judge Watkins .'ranting the deputies a writ of mandate requiring the commission-eis commission-eis to order their ;ilaries paid for sei vices rendered as approved by tin r-ounty audiiur. from which an appeul was taken, rs thus held valid by t he supreme court. The ruling of the district court, a.-es: ing all co.sls in the case against Coin miss! oners Smoot and "lilhmin. personally and not against Utah county, is also affirmed by the supreme court The decision points out that the county is not a party to the cause. On this particular piont the decision deci-sion reads as follows: "Where in a proceeding of this nature against a public officer, he arbitrarily or ciipi iciously and in bad faith, as here found, neglected or refused to perform a duty by law enjoined upon him and resulting from his office, and the party beneficially in-; in-; tcresled is pu tto costs in bringing j a proceeding to compel tho peiform- ! ance of the duty, and prevails therein, thf public officer is himself liable for costs." Chums Disallowed The point made that the judgment judg-ment for costs should not go against the appellants personally because they were sued in their offifcial capacity ca-pacity and not as individuals is not tt nable. 'The general rule is that public officers are personally liable for costs incurred in mandamus ' proceedings to compel them to pev- r form duties which they are re- ; quired by law to perform'." j: As a result of this ruling, four claims filed with the county auditor for the printing of abstracts and ; reply briefs in the case, totaling $179. will not be honored by Auditor Amnion Tutlle, although two of the j claims have been approved by J 1 County Attorney George S Balllf as j a lawful charge against the county. (! , The entire case originated on a wirtten notice delivered to 4 Sheriff ; J. n Boyd and Treasurer J. 'C. Tay- , lor by Commissioners Gillman and j Smoot in their inevadual capacity on December iJ, 1928. declaring that they did not intend to confirm Fowler, Coates and Davis as deputies dep-uties for the next year and to govern gov-ern themselves accordingly "in making up your list of deputies for thr ncKt year." In reply the sheriff it writing stales that his deputies, Coates and Davis, had been with him for a number of years and had proved 1 hemselves capable and efficient officers; that if there was anything, to show they were inefficient or neglectful he was willing to co-op-eiate with the board; but that in the absence of some such showing, , or other good cause, he. as a matter of service to the public and in harmony har-mony with his office, saw no reason for a dismissal of the deputies. No action was taken or reply made to that by any of the members mem-bers of the board The deputies continued in office. M alters were brought to a head when the county auditor certified to the board a payroll of the of-' of-' fieers of the county. March 1 1929 including the names of the deputies under fire. Names Stricken ''lie board then approved and ordered or-dered paid all of the payroll except the three deputies whose names were stricken from the payroll and the auditor was directed not to pay, them On this point the supreme court decision and transcript says: "One of the commissioners, and who was most active in the transactions, trans-actions, testified that 'the commission commis-sion acted arbitrarily' and that course puisucd by him and another commissionur acting with him un4 who constituted a quorum of the hoaiv. was to oust the plaintiffs fiom office and to discontinue their service, and 'that was the intended eftect so far as we were concerned'. ' In defense -of their acts the two commissioners held that the three deputies had not been confirmed; 'that the original confirmation ljad . been for; one year only and that furthermore fur-thermore a new board was now in office whose acts could not be affected af-fected by previous boards. After going into great length in 1 regard to the question of whether or not the board is a continuous body the decision says: "The rule deduced by us is this: Where an appointment of a deputy is made by a county officer as by the statute provided and the appointment ap-pointment conf irmeu without limitation limi-tation as to time, the appointment for and during the term of the county officer, making the appointment, appoint-ment, unless the office is sooner abolished or vocated, or the services ser-vices of the deputy no longer required, re-quired, or where the deputy is shown to be incompetent, inefficient ineffic-ient or neglectful in the discharge -of his duties or has been guilty of misconduct or wrongful or unlawful acts, or where his dismissal is justified jus-tified or warranted for other good cause; but that he may not by the board, either directly or indirectly, summarily and without cause, or abi itrarily be dismissed or discharged dis-charged during the term of office of the county officer appointing the deputy "The trial court upon all before him took the view that the period designated by the board in January 1927 related only to the salaries as then fixed, and not to the period or term of the appointment itself and that it was so thereafter considered and treated by the board when the second confirmation was made in January 192S, without limitation, and so thereafter was treated and regarded by the board and the salaries ordered paid by it to the plaintiffs without question or objection, ob-jection, until just before the commencement com-mencement of this action. "We are therefore of the opinion that the writ was properly issued and that the judgment should be, and it accordingly is, affirmed.' The salaries of the three deputies have been paid by the county since the appeal was taken on a stipulation stipula-tion by attorneys for both sides. County Attorney George S. Ballif and his assistant W. Stanley Dun-ford Dun-ford represented the defendants in the district court, while Judge A. B. Morgan and Milan R. Straw were the counsel for the deputies. Attorney At-torney M. M. Larson assisted the counsel for'the defense in preparing the appeal to the supreme court. |