Show I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 FARELL 1 1 the of weber count Y has I 1 BEEN AWARDED TO ilin by the supreme court of that august tribunal what will be movel william farrell hns been t I 1 ga in victorious before the aurta britho con test for tile treasure hIp of weber county on the supreme court of tile territory delivered an opinions by aa socrate justice barb man zane and concurring to tile that farrell anti not the next A it be is not at pres cot known the full text of the opinion Is as fol to at the general election beldin august 1884 one P clarris aas elected to tile office of county tre of weber county under a statute which established tile and provided that the term of offie e of the county treasurers treasur ers should be four s and until their successors should aar e lecter and qualified quent lyon the day of isso bearly two years after earris election the statial was amended by striking put ilia word four anzi substituting tile word two in lieu t hereof at tile general election in august 1830 the defendant 11 ingree was elected to the office of of for tile term tha theora that harris term had expired at ahat tinder tile stute as amended in tile harris having been elect for a term of four years had two years yet to run at that time unless tha amendment of march 11 had deprived him of the two years subsequent to the date of pin acos election P a entered upon the di b I 1 0 thaties of tile e his elve tion in rufust Ju fUSt 1830 thOUgh clarris had ilot resigned nar head removed from offic ki february fillou I 1 ng t in data of iziu eba taking the office died no one wall appointed after arris death t 0 fill tile office but il ingree continued in it at the g c in augustl issa to plaintiff plAin tift wag elected to said office and received his certificate and aas duly qualified to enter upon the discharge of the duties of the office demanded tito possession of tile books and insignia of the officio from tile de fen clant who was then in pos K aaion of them the defendant havin f re I 1 fused to dellver them up to hill tile plaintiff brought this action alad upon the cheari f the case tile judgment I 1 1 I 1 n g for tile alil naiff tile defendant a isaeal a d to we learn from the appellants brief that tile Judgment Of tile lower court to have been that the tile lith of 31 arrIt 1880 operated at once a 4 it vacation of tile office then belliv bel ltv clarris 6 t ilia to hold tile office is successor should lie elected and fied the language of the brief is that tile effect of the of alarca 1980 striking out the word was to repeal the bernis of office of all county then in office so far as any term of years then might be and simply to leave them 0 continue in officio or hold over until their successors should he elected and qualified 11 and the defendant further contends tt tat upon this theory the fixed term of harris expired at tile taking effect of tile amendment or repeal on tile lith of iama 1880 and that liar ris could only hold until his successor a I 1 bould be elected and qualified after that date A aich lie claims took place at tile august election of IM N lien the defendant was elected to the office and therefore qualified there was no vacation of lite office in express term bythe enactment of bearch 1886 tito question then arise awas there such a vacation by the act treating tile office the amendment dealt only with the length 0 I 1 lite term of office it left all ilia re 8 idue of the statute intact and in force it the legislature intended to vacate the office that intention must cleary appear before a court is warranted warrin ted in sayin exist tile defendant claims afa net I 1 n oie antio a hewn in tile enactment declaring that tile old statute is b striking out the word four but RT that the striking out clause vacates Is the word four nothing else I 1 8 j pretended in the act to be vacated I 1 tat word is dropped out of tha statute but tile office is not dropped out it is left to stand as it stood be fore one vi ord four being repealed s out and the residue of tile statute being allowed to stand ilar ris have found liln be if upon the adoption of tile amendment on the lith of elarch in an office the term of A blell had no end ilia term would havi been instead of lepE ened by the repeal or etri kirg out tile rord four anu there could have been no sort of groaned for saying that under such circumstances any one else could have by any elec I 1 ion or appointment a better right to be office ile had been duly elected to it nearly two years prior to that time had not been removed nor fact lie resigned and the office had not been abolished only tile time limit bad been removed but tile rule of construction Is to take t 1 0 statue and consider all of its parts together and not take a fractious frac tiou and komider vo mider that hy itself the amenda tory enactment of tile alth of march isby not only contained tile word i ankie aut the word four but it also conta i ned the words substituting the word two in lieu thereof tito ri king out and the substitution were acts with the word R t WO 0 o aco 0 of four r e t n d the effect of tile c hange there is no authority or bouda reason for holding that such amendment took effort as of august 1884 nearly two prior to its ge rye enactment tile n d ant contend that although the statute took on the day of its passage yet that it related back to the august of issa the ll 11 of harris election Wear oata 1 to know iphy this Is ito tha amendment says nothing whatever hat ever about the enactment relating back two years or any other time prior to its pas Faze and we see nothing ill tile ont upon which 0 hang in fore dee of that nature we are not justified in adding to a statute something that the le lature never V n tion in enacting tile statute the bad the po to havo said so but fo M not now considering the power of the legislature we are considering whether citey had exercised that power tito statute with the interpretation pre tation sought to he placed upon it by th defendant would be clearly re t avo no court will a 1 retroactive and hen the leals lature has not said so and there is no reason why it should be sop ind where the statute Is easily of another ana reasonable construct on the general rull no found in the boo a Is even stronger than we have state it I 1 laid down I 1 ba a i maxims that flaws i con orad as and pot to 0 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 a unless they tire made applicable to past transactions and to such as are still pending brooms legal maxims 1 34 and cooley tile doctrine aery defan bitely as follows alad it is ii rule ot construction that a statute should lave a prospective prospect ivo only unless its terms abow a intention that it 11 Cm leyla const lim 1 see also ely ag 15 N Y vs newark 40 N J L and others it being clear therefore ther eforo thiet taio legislative intent thattie amendment should be daem not aej it Is settled by tin mzx of authority that the allent of tile of march 11 6 had no re tive effort but its operation is entirely pro I e clive the melt illah two cars that harris had beld the office 0 I 1 con ty treasurer not therefore nho anun led 88 pat t of 0 yearn terl il of office fir 1 tell for in the amend anent the two years in ilia enactment ere fomo to I 1 to Ia spage the liar its in office it did not vacate his of e or it the st it male a I 1 if V able to him at all as tolt lion that it boua hold lie office for aiho 3 ears the word thereafter mean after the amendment should go into effect m aich would occur lien there hall been a leation of the comp laws p 78 see 2 hold tile omeo under tile if it could apply to him for t ho 0 two years after the amendment and the time of such publication li does not appear nor Is it maas aerial no doubt the publication took dortly after its pas age alad to e election fit august brior SO but as vi a have been that it tile amendment W at all applicable to I 1 clarris lie was under it on if 10 hold the t 0 years follow tile enactment and attl TT tl y tile dicu tion of tile defendant tile office at tile e ral 1 election in augast lu gast und fn an fo r bestich expired aas unauthorized by law but tho iason alloway applicable to harris ile lie d lilt office under a bt a into which had not be n repeated nor bad it ili an y teanner been modified ex capt t ill t tha terin of office after its passage was to bet instead of four learo theretofore no reference I 1 was made to tile cafes of lenons then in office the statute was ly pro ap CC live and related to terms of office in tile it ture a hackell Hat kell 5 cal cooley d const uma p in the itell considered congi dered rae ra e of fete rs vs blassey 33 graft SOS tile court of appeals of virginia laid dou n t I 1 da doctrine in plain terms and the contest in that cam was tit some respects similar to that in tile case at bar two cases are referred tobythea defendant the one in texas and the other in california as being of a contrary character tito texas base of vs adams 45 texas simply states the rule that where the duration of the term of officio is a question of doubt or uncertainty the shortest time is to be adopted in tile case at bar me aernt of office is not a of such uncertainty tainY or doubt as wits contemplated in that caie tito principle inculcated by that decision wits that he retho has I 1 eft R blank for by definite en ent rai there Is a doubt its to horn s uch blank should be A itald It Ld tile rule be that it alou il follo tile PUNCY Of making tile fermi W f office at tilo shorted sh peri a I 1 d it ell lila convenience of tile public nill I 1 e mit otal to apply A hen the term of office is ascertainable from the statute under the ordinary buleti of construct ion if the ordinary rules of shall have and matter is fit doubt the court solve 01 falo fal o V and adot alavi 0 iv CO ihrl mt a reference of tile election back to lite people at the shortest perlo Is consistent with the public convenience the cal case of lite beup le vs brenden 3 cal was a cm such as 0 I 1 i a ve deschi bed the charter of san francisco provided that the first election under it for city officers should be on I 1 I 1 ie four f it of april 1851 and t 1 hereafter annually at the general for state officers file latter w then held in Sep r and at the first general elett lon in sept in ber of that vear the relator wits hayw fit e il brenden Bre nhen refu ed to tile statute had madeno provision as to A hether ilia te r ill of tile mayor that had 11 rt been elected should hold on until tile first general election or to the next there a after fter N 0 general rules of construction could solve the doubt and the court was at aca under such air cum stances the court held that the bea rule to follow was that was the established the brute and it was to adolyn ibe shortest period these two cases cited by the defendant do not affect the general doctrine that the statute must be wn as prospective in it and not retrospective with that doe trine which ii so aall settled to guide us the true intent of the legis baturo laturo is made manifest and there can exist no such doubt or uncertainty as to require the court to adopt as Is I 1 ab t another rule which I 1 not to be into excerpt m lien a question of polica and not a rule of JAW is to govean in the interpretation of a statute we find no error fit the action of the coart below abid the is therefore ther eforo zane CJ concurs li enderson A J concurs |