| OCR Text |
Show SHEETS CASE TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT BY SUPREME COURT; LONG ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL FOR BOTH SIDES by the appointment of George A. Sheets to the office of Chief of Police. The liability .was created when the statute was passed creating: the office and fixing the salary. The salary of the office was fixed by an ordinance at the time the statute creating; the office was passed. City Attorney for Defense. City Attorney George L. Nye, who has been retained by the defendant In the case, then reviewed and enlarred upon the same arguments made by Mr. Straup. x , 1 "We contend," said Mr. Nye. "that the common law rule, providing: that a majority of a quorum may be decisive In the disposition of any question, holds rood in this case." In connection with the liability question, ques-tion, he said that if the salary feature Is left out, there is non liability against the city. Without The ordi nance providing- far- the salary of the office there would be.no liability. The appointment did not create the liability; lia-bility; it was already there, only It was suspended. He cited cases in other States showing1 that an appointment where there was no salary especially attached to the office did not create a liability, and that, when suit was brought by the officials so appointed to secure compensation for their services. Judgment was rendered against them, Attorney-General Defends Himself. Attorney-General Breeden made the opening argument for the prosecution. "A good deal," he said, "has been said in the newspapers and on the streets Bince this pretended appointment was made, as to opinions of mine In regard to this matter, and I want to say now, In Justice to myself, that the reports have all been false." Counsel, he said, was associated with 1 The quo warranto proceedings in which George A. Sheets, Chief of Police Po-lice of Salt Lake City, is made the defendant, de-fendant, came up in the Supreme court this morning. Attorney-General M. A. Breeden was assisted in the case by Attorneys Richards and Varlan, while the attorneys for the defense were, D. N. Straup, City Attorney George L. Nye, Judge Loofbourow and F. C. Loof-bourow. Loof-bourow. The case was considered from every standpoint and the question of whether the rule of the Council, providing that a majority of all the members elected shall be necessary to confirm an appointment, was fully argued. ar-gued. Rule Exceeds Council's Power. The complaint in the case was read briefly by Attorney D. N. Straup, counsel by Attorney D. N. Straup, principal questions involved In the case, said Mr. Straup are, as to whether the City Council had the power, under the statute, to make rule 17. providing that a majority of all the Council be necessary to confirm appointments made by the Mayor, and as to whether the act created a liability against the city. He argued that the making of rule 17 by the Council exceeded the power of the statute In that It Is not a rule of procedure. The statute provides pro-vides that a quorum of the Council, which would be eight members in this case, shall be necessary to transact business, and a majority of the quorum is all that is necessary to confirm an appointment. No Liability Created. He then took up the question of liability, and took the stand that no liability against the city was created htm In the prosecution of the case, but not at his request as had been reported. The counsel were agreeable to him, he continued, and in accordance with a rule of his own, he would leave the most of the work on their shoulders. He made some further remarks dealing deal-ing with the case. If five members, he said, were all that was necessary to transact business, why should the Council consist of fifteen members. Side of City Council. . When Gen. Breeden took his chair Attorney D. S. Richards, who has been retained by the "Council eight," took up the argument. The statute providing provid-ing that a majority of the Councilmen elected should be necessary to remove an officer, he said, should also apply In the confirmation of an appointment. He argued that the rule of the Council was not in conflict with the statute and that the statute itself meant that a majority of all the members was necessary ne-cessary to pass an ordinance or create a liability. He said there was no liability until the office was filled as there was no one to enforce It. To create a liability you must make an appointment. The office may be created and the salary provided pro-vided for, but no liability exists until an incumbent has been placed in office. The confirmation of an appointment to an office creates the liability. In closing he said it was equally important im-portant to the State and to the city that a majority of all the members of the Council was Just as necessary for an appointment as for a removal and that he felt assured the court would place that construction upon the statute. stat-ute. Defense Cite3 Authorities. Judge Loofbourow. for the defense, made the closing argument in the case. He cited similar cases to this that have come up elsewhere and gave authorities showing that the defendant In this action ac-tion should be considered as legally holding the office of Chief of Police. The matter has been taken under advisement by the Supreme court and It is expected that a decision will be rendered in a very few days. |
