State v. Olsen

• Decision Date: 29 April 1916
• Docket Number: 12965.
• Citation: 157 P. 34,91 Wash. 56
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BEACH v. OLSEN et al.

157 P. 34

91 Wash. 56

STATE ex rel. BEACH v. OLSEN et al.

No. 12965.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

April 29, 1916

Appeal from Superior Court, Kitsap County; Walter M. French, Judge.

Action for writ of mandate by the State, on the relation of A. J Beach, against Andrew Olsen and others. From a judgment directing that the writ issue, defendants appeal. Cause remanded, with direction to enter judgment in accordance with the opinion.

F. W Moore, of Seattle, for appellants.

W. V Tanner, Atty. Gen., and Edward W. Allen, Asst. Atty. Gen (Bryan & Colvin, of Seattle, of counsel), for respondent.

MAIN J.

This is a companion case to that of State ex rel. Lopas et al. v. Shagren et al., 157 P. 31, just decided. The principal question here presented is discussed and decided in that case. There are two or three minor questions, however, in this case, which are not covered in the other opinion. In this case the claims involved are the salary of the county game warden for the month of March, 1915, for $100, and for $32.80, which was expended by the game warden in the performance of the duties of his office. The trial court entered a judgment in which the county auditor was directed to issue warrants for these claims. The judgment also ordered that the county commissioners desist from in any manner interfering with the issuance of any warrants by the county auditor, and also desist from considerating any claims for salary or otherwise which might be presented by the county game warden.

The first question is whether the claims for salary of the county game warden and the moneys expended by him in the performance of the duties of his office should be presented to the board of county commissioners for examination and allowance. In section 34 of the Game Code (Laws of 1913, c. 120, p. 372), it is provided that: 'All payments made under the provisions of this act shall be made by warrant in the usual manner, and shall be audited by the * * * county officers in the same manner as other claims against the * * * various counties are audited.'

By this provision of the Game Code, all claims are to be audited in the same manner as other claims against the various counties. The manner of auditing claims presented against the various counties is found in section 3918, Rem. & Bal. Code, wherein it is provided that:

'He (the county auditor) shall audit all claims, demands and accounts against the county which by law are chargeable to said county. * * * Such claims as it is his duty to audit shall be presented to the board of county commissioners for their examination and allowance. * * *'

It will be noticed that by this statute it is the duty of the auditor to audit claims, and then present them to the board of county commissioners for their 'examination and allowance.'

If the salary of the game warden and his expenses are to be audited in the same manner as other claims against the various counties, as stated in the Game Code, it is necessary that they be presented to the board of county commissioners for examination and allowance. The two statutes do not seem to be susceptible of any other construction. It follows that the trial court was in error in not directing that the claims be presented to the board of county commissioners for examination and allowance.

...