Show 1 SPECIAL iNVESTIGATOR I TOR NULLS HUllS ClAIM IS DISAPPROVED f f. f Salt Lal Lake e county count has ha no right to purchase lecal leen advice from a 3 layman even thou though h that advice should prove Bound and logical Is la the dictum of or County Attorney H H. L. L In an opinion to the county auditor Charles 1 It Weaver with reference to the al allowance al- al lowance of ot a claim chum b by Thomas Hull of or t for dr r services as a 0 special investigator investigator imes tl ator Into alleged irregularities Tho The commissioners had ap approved up- up proved pd the tho bill bBl It is Iii held by tho the county count attorney that Hull Hul tool In too much territory thereby exceeding his duties s. s and may therefore bo be O entitled only to pay b by tho the day which under the statute is limited to U 3 a 0 day Such ruling It ml might ht appear would subject Hulls Hull's export expert services to the tho basis of ot a laborer la laborers laborer's Ia- Ia borers borer's pay according to Hulls Hull's Tho Tilo county count attorneys attorney's opinion follows fol tol- to- to lows Dear Sir Referring to your letter letter letter let let- ter of August 5 5 requesting an opinIon opinion ion concerning the tho validity of ot the tho in in- in closed claim of Thomas Hull amounting amountIng amount- amount Ing ng to beg to advise ad The count county commissioners have approved d this claim chum and ordered it paid paM subject however howe to your our check checkas n as az to the time Urno employed The Tho commissioners are charged with tho the duty of ot supervising the count county offices and of auditing the books of ot your our office ottice They ma may employ employ employ em em- ploy tho the holp hop necessary in discharging ing theo these duties and tho the payment for tor euch help Ic Ie a a. proper county charge charKe Tho The contract o of employment however however how how- ever must bo br strictly within the line of or such euch duties of ot the commission the tho commissioners would not have ha the power to make mako It And tho the services f rendered pur- pur to such contract should ho bo within the purview punie of ot the contract so som m ulA Tho Th commissioners rejected a portion portion por por- tion of ot this hIs report as being without o th the terms of or Mr lr Hulls Hull's employment Other r portions of or tho the report contained con con- tamed legal advice ad for tor which comIn coming com corn In lug ing from tron a layman the thEl commission- commission era eri could not charge the tho count county even assuming the advice Ice given cn to be bo I sound Round Which in this case it was not The part which was waR rejected way was of ot no possible benefit to tho the count county These These- services do not constitute a charge against the count county and o of course no action by the board can render the tho county count liable The portion of ot the report which is devoted dc to a checking of the records while it does not lIz fix Ix the responsibility responsibility for tor the alleged excess and serves sent's no useful purpose is still within the power of or the commission commission commission commis commis- sion to contract for and being ap approved approved ap- ap approved proved b becomes comes a count county charge Just justas ns as work done on the count county roads and within the power of the commission to contract for tor a a. charge against the tho county count even thou though h the roads roa may at all be benefited by such work You are charged however er both by bylaw bylaw law Jaw and the order of ot the tho hoard boardS with checking up as to the time lime actually employed in this portion of ot tho the work This should be bo dono done and a warrant drawn I find no law Jaw restricting tho the per diem on this work to three three- dollars dollar |