Shelby County Fiscal Court v. Cosine

192 S.W. 626, 174 Ky. 504, 1917 Ky. LEXIS 211
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedMarch 9, 1917
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 192 S.W. 626 (Shelby County Fiscal Court v. Cosine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shelby County Fiscal Court v. Cosine, 192 S.W. 626, 174 Ky. 504, 1917 Ky. LEXIS 211 (Ky. Ct. App. 1917).

Opinion

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Sampson

Reversing.

This appeal involves the construction of section 1884, Kentucky Statutes, which provides that the sheriff or other collecting officer in addition to executing a revenue bond and making settlement annually, in writing, with the fiscal court showing the receipts and disbursements of the year, further provides that the statement or settlement shall be published, using this language : “And the same shall be published for at least two weeks in the paper published in the county having the largest circulation therein, if any be published in the county, if none, then the settlement shall be published by written or printed hand bills posted at the front door of the courthouse., and at least three other public places in the county.”

This litigation arose out of a controversy between three weekly newspapers located in Shelby county, Kentucky over which one should publish the settlement or statement of the fiscal affairs of the county for the year ending March 1st, 1916.

The Shelby News, Shelby Record, and Shelby Sentinel each desired the printing. The fiscal court after considering the matter, declined to enter an order directing the publication to be had in the newspaper published in Shelby county having the largest circulation therein, but finally made an order inviting the three newspapers to submit bids upon the job of publishing the statements for two consecutive weeks and directed that the said work should be let to the lowest and best bidder. The Shelby News claiming to have the largest circulation of any paper published in the county and asserting that section .1884, Ky. Stats., with reference to the publication of the statement is mandatory and that the duties of the fiscal court, with respect to the publication of this statement are ministerial only, objected to the letting of this contract to the lowest cm3 best bidder and filed its sworn statements showing its circu[506]*506lation to be the largest of any paper published in the county, and upon the fiscal court 'declining to award it the contract, but awarding it to the Shelby Record, instituted this action in the Shelby circuit court seeking a mandamus compelling the fiscal court to reassemble, revoke its former order on the subject and award the contract for the printing to the Shelby News, it being the paper with the largest circulation published in Shelby county.

The Shelby Record and its editor filed a petition to be made parties to the action, and became parties defendant. The fiscal court made no defense, but the Shelby Record interposed a demurrer to the petition. The circuit court heard the question and determined that the plaintiff, Shelby News, and its editor, were entitled ■to the relief sought in the petition. Thereupon a judgment was entered, ordering and directing the fiscal court of Shelby county to reassemble and to award the contract for the printing of the statement of the sheriff, to the newspaper published in Shelby county having the largest circulation therein. This order followed the language of- the statute, but the petition, it will be observed, did not do so. From this order and judgment, overruling the demurrer, the defendant, Shelby Record, and its editor, appeals to this court asking a construction of the section of the statute, supra.

The statute is not ambiguous, but on the contrary is quite plain and easy of construction. The legislature had the right and it was within its power to require the fiscal courts of the several counties to publish the .statement of the sheriff, showing the financial status of the county, and in so doing it possessed the power to say how the advertising or publicity should be had. It, therefore, provided for the publication of the settlement, which is a detailed statement of the receipts and disbursements of the county, saying: “The same shall be published for at least two weeks in the paper published in the county having the largest circulation therein, if any be published in the county.”

This statute was passed in the interest of the public good. In such matters publicity is a safeguard, which, when well employed, renders the public revenue even more secure than iron bars or fire-proof safes. The fiscal affairs sometimes have fallen into such bad way that those having them in charge have carefully with[507]*507held and guarded the true condition, less the public become informed and select a new" set of officers at the next ensuing election. To prevent this, and that the taxpayers and real persons in interest might know the facts, the legislature has provided for the publication of this statement. It did not leave it in the discretion of the fiscal court to publish the statement if in its judgment it should think best, but the provision is mandatory, and the publication must be made, whether it suits the convenience or the financial condition of the county or its fiscal agents, or not. It has a'beneficent purpose, and when well employed, no doubt, has a wholesome influence. • The exact status of the financial affairs of the county is brought home to those directly affected. To give the fiscal court a discretion as to whether the statement should be published, or how it should be published, would, in cases in which it was most needed, and primarily intended to correct, defeat the whole purpose of the statute. Those counties whose financial affairs have been so conducted as to warrant the officers in voluntarily making public the receipts and disbursements, are not the ones intended to be reached by this act, but it is those counties whose affairs have been so mismanaged that the fiscal court would rather hide than exploit the real conditions. The county newspaper usually reaches a very large per cent, of the population of the county and its contents are carefully read. Its influence is far reaching. If its editor be a sensible, discreet and industrious citizen the paper will accomplish great and lasting good. Such an institution should be recognized and encouraged.

To make the statute more effective and to bring the information contained in the statement to the attention of the greatest number of taxpayers, and the people generally, the act provides that the publication must be made in the newspaper published in the county having the largest circulation therein. It sometimes happens that a newspaper published in a county, having the largest circulation of any paper published therein, does not at the same time have the largest circulation in that county of any newspaper published in the county. A newspaper having the largest circulation, if it did not reach the people of the county where published, but went beyond the county into other counties or states would not meet the purposes or requirements of the stat[508]*508ute. Two things must concur: The paper must be published in the county, and it must have the largest circulation in that county of any paper published therein. While, the fiscal court has no power or authority to cause the statement of the sheriff to be published by a newspaper which offers the lowest and best bid, irrespective of its circulation, it does have the right, and it is its duty, to obtain the facts and ascertain which newspaper, among those published in the county, if there be more than one, has the largest bona fide circulation. When this fact is ascertained nothing remains but to award the contract to that publication.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cooper v. Kentuckian Citizen
258 S.W.2d 695 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1953)
Providence Pub. Co. v. Hearin
114 S.W.2d 492 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1938)
Lamphere v. Latah County
2 P.2d 317 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
192 S.W. 626, 174 Ky. 504, 1917 Ky. LEXIS 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shelby-county-fiscal-court-v-cosine-kyctapp-1917.