« PreviousContinue »
ordinance or merely by orders entered upon the minutes of the board may be questioned. Under the act of 1891, see De Baker v. Batcheller, 97 Cal. 472. Official misconduct.
SEC. 52. Any supervisor who refuses or neglects to perform any duty imposed on him, without just cause therefor, or who willfully violates any law provided for his government as such officer, or fraudulently or corruptly performs any duty imposed on him, or willfully, fraudulently, or corruptly attempts to perform an act, as supervisor, unauthorized by law, in addition to the penalty provided in the Penal Code, forfeits to the county five hundred dollars for every such act, to be recovered on his official bond, and is further liable on his official bond, to any person injured thereby, for all damages sustained.
Political Code, section 4086; Statutes 1873– 4, page 911; Penal Code sections 759–772, 176.
The act of 1873-4, was repealed by section 55 of county government act of 1883, and repealing clause of the last mentioned act (section 184). Fraser v. Alexander, 75 Cal. 150; Crossman v. Kenniston, 97 Cal. 381.
The act of 1873-4, alluded to provided for judgment in favor of the informer for one hundred dollars.
For failure or neglect of oflicial duty a supervisor is personally liable, both civilly and criminally. See section 7 and notes, ante. Santa Cruz R. R. Co. v. County of Santa Clara, 62 Cal. 180; Merriam v. Board of Supervisors, 72 Cal. 519. But not at the suit of a mere tax payer.
For any injury to the public the county is the proper party plaintiff and the district attorney should prosecute the action. Hedges v. Dam, 72 Cal. 522. See note under section 61, infra.
But an individual supervisor is not liable on account of an unlawful act or contract of the board unless he favored it. Moulton v. Parks, 64 Cal. 167.
The act of March 30, 1874 [Statutes 1873-4, page 911), providing for the removal and punishment of members of certain boards for misfeasance in office, by prosecutions in the district courts, ceased to exist upon the adoption of the new constitution which abolished such courts; but waiving this point, the said act was inconsistent with sections 55 and 184 of the county government act of 1883, and would be held to be thereby repealed. Fraser v. Alexander, 75 Cal. 151. Who eligible to county offices.
SEC. 54. No person is eligible to a county, district, or township office, who, at the time of his election, is not of the age of twenty-one years, a citizen of the state, and an elector of the county, district, or township in which the duties of the office are to be exercised; provided, that any woman who is of the age of twenty-one years, a citizen of the state, and a resident of the county or district. shall be eligible to the office of superintendent of public schools, school trustee, or member of the county board of education; and provided further, that no person shall hereafter be eligible to the office of district attorney who has not been admitted to practice in the supreme court of the state of California.
Sections 4101 and 4102, Political Code.
Excepting as to the last clause affecting district attorneys, the foregoing section is the same as section 56 of the former county givernment acts.
Women may be appointed as notaries public, Political Code 792, amendment 1891. [Statutes 1891, page 29. j Women as school trustees. Political Code, section 1593.
By act of March 12, 1874 [statutes 1873-4, page 356], it is declared: "Sec. 1. Women, over the
age of twenty-one years, who are citizens of the United States and of this state, shall be eligible to all educational offices within this state except those from which they are excluded by the constitution.” Section 2 of the act repeals all acts in conflict therewith.
The word eligible means capable of being chosen; the subject of election or choice; possessing the qualifications prescribed by law. People v. Leonard, 73 Cal. 230.
Votes given for a person who is ineligible are not to be counted for the person receiving the next highest number of votes. People v. Turner, 20 Cal. 143; Crawford v. Dunbar, 52 Cal. 36; Searcy v. Grow, 15 Cal. 118; People v. Whitman, 10 Cal. 38; Sanders v. Haynes, 13 Cal. 146; People v. Leonard, 73 Cal. 230.
It is not left with the appointing power to determine conclusively upon the qualifications of a person to hold office. The courts have authority to pass on that question. Palmer v. Woodbury, 14 Cal. 43.
Officers of a county.
SEC. 55. The officers of a county are a sheriff, a county clerk, an auditor, a recorder, a license collector, a tax collector, who shall be ex officio license collector, a district attorney, an assessor, a treasurer, a superintendent of schools, a public administrator, a coroner, a surveyor, the members of the board of supervisors, and such other officers as may be provided by law. In counties where the board of supervisors by proper ordinance so elect, except as otherwise provided in this act, the duties of certain of the above mentioned officers are hereby consolidated, as follows: Sheriff and tax collector; auditor and recorder; county clerk, auditor, and recorder; county clerk and recorder; county clerk and auditor; treasurer and tax col. lector; assessor and tax collector; public administrator and coroner. In counties where the duties of said officers have been, or may hereafter be, consolidated in either manner above designated, the board of supervisors thereof, by proper ordinance, may elect to separate the duties so consolidated, and reconsolidate them in any other manner above provided, or may separate said duties without reconsolidation, and provide that the duties of each office shall be performed by a separate person, whenever, in their discretion, the public interest will be best subserved thereby. When offices are united and consolidated, the person elected to fill the offices so united and consolidated must take the oath and give the bond required for each, discharge all the duties pertaining to each, and receive the compensation of the offices consolidated.
Political Code, section 4103.
The above section appears. to be the same as section 57 of the former county government acts excepting that the last sentence of this is new and the provision for consolidating the offices of "assessor and collector" is new,
and the office of "license collector” is here created.
Section 57 and other sections of the act of 1891, were amended by act approved March 23, 1893, but the entire new act of 1893, being approved on the following day, it is believed that the amendatory act was thereby repealed, and it has not been thought necessary to give it any other attention. The offices of jailer and transcriber were created by the amendments above mentioned, but such offices are not provided for in any subsequent legislation.
Under section 4105, Political Code, certain offices in counties of the third class were consolidated, and under section 4106 the supervisors were authorized by ordinance passed three months prior to a general election to consolidate other offices in counties of the second class. There were also numerous special acts prior to constitution of 1879 and county government act of 1883, consolidating offices in different counties.
By section 4107 it was provided that when there was an omission by the supervisors to consolidate and advertise the consolidation of offices, as in the preceding section authorized, each office not so consolidated should be filled by election.
A failure of the board to order the publication of the ordinance was held to be an omission to consolidate. People v. Bailhachie, 52 Cal. 311.
And the publication in a newspaper of the