| Show romis at f as aad 4 lot will met 1 I IT demea tb the question Ms with county treasur r bryner whether or nut he honl I 1 acael acwith t county W at 0 logo of aud in payment of tarn laze for or itil the county attorney WAS asked for aa an opinion aul ant as attorney Atto ruey holt alf manu Tolon tary opinion WM was adverse tn to the opinion of chanly attorney tb abi 1 r through gli county attorney wart aih ask 1 for a rulina from lie its attorney tu oeral eral att af r atla thi th cacide IAci reporter pal nj rall rl eja cas Attorney At torny Uh the warrent war runt lanol by your county in bw aud itla W I 1 afra issued in tnt of of alls years respect all 1 l goald seen wn paid out of the revenue of thom uri or your county hoal shoal I 1 bare have arjil itself of tile provisions loru of the law allowing it t to issue lomu bonds to take up its outstay i ling I 1 it seems m tear clear that the payment of taxes f ajr r ita la in warra warrant its of 1823 cuilon an I 1 INK letl which as above were hratz la in etym pi Trant nt of debba incurred in taoso year weal I 1 amount to a payment of the we tte duess of abon yean years by the reTe nagis of the entreat year 1097 4 such a payment of the indebtedness of former rear years amount to a flouting over to trio the indebted ol el um incurred la ja ehme year years and a pay ment merit of it out of tho revenues of the current year nil la in oar our op opinion luton would be contrary to the tile construction of be the constitutional lon lid lila down by the curt la in the case above referred to you are therefore tb th alie acrid bat that county collector ta to not autho authorial monty wa wit rants 1 iau t d la in d tu la 1 vt of callei fur for year INT ciuni conmy attorney wart a of 01 anlon the 1 AS u that given lr DT the AttO general |
