Smith v. Ellis
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Bingham County. The paramount object of such statutes as section 7459 of the (Revised Statutes of Idaho is the removal from office of incumbents who knowingly, willfully and corruptly use their official position as a medium for extortion and wrong.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Bingham County. The paramount object of such statutes as section 7459 of the (Revised Statutes of Idaho is the removal from office of incumbents who knowingly, willfully and corruptly use their official position as a medium for extortion and wrong. (Smith v. Ling, 68 Cal. 324, 9 Pae. 171; People v. Nichols, 79 (N. Y.) 588; Gorman-v. County Commrs., 1 Idaho, 559; Triplett v. Murder? 50 Cal. 644; Smith v. Ling, 68 Cal. 324, 9 Pac. 172; Bcmlcin v. Jauman, 4 Idaho, 394, 39 Pac. 1111, 1113.) So far as shown by the record, the acts complained of operated for the benefit…
1Opinion of the CourtQuarles, J.
This action was commenced by information or accusation verified by one J. Ed. Smith, accusing the appellant, W. G. Ellis, with presenting and collecting, as constable of Idaho Falls precinct, Bingham county, claims for illegal fees against said county. There are a number of general allegations in the information to the effect that the appellant, as such constable, had at different times knowingly, willfully, and corruptly charged illegal fees. But as this action, which was commenced to remove appellant from office under chapter 2, title 2, of the Penal Code, is strictly penal, such general…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Archbold v. HuntingtonIdaho Supreme Court · 1921
- Ponting v. IsamanIdaho Supreme Court · 1900
- McRoberts v. HoarIdaho Supreme Court · 1915
- Spongberg v. First National BankIdaho Supreme Court · 1909
- In Re MacKenzieIdaho Supreme Court · 1935
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.