DocketNumber: No. 4959
Citation Numbers: 36 Colo. 473
Judges: Goddard
Filed Date: 1/15/1906
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/20/2022
delivered the opinion of the court:
The error assigned upon the overruling of the motion to quash presents the question whether a city officer, or any of the enumerated officers other than the county treasurer, are within the inhibition of the statute. It is contended by counsel for plaintiff in error that the omission of the words “city, town, or school district,” following the word “county” in the sixth line of the section, renders the statute a nullity so far as these officers are concerned, and operative only as to county officers.
One of my associates agrees with the writer that this position is well taken, but, since all the members of this department do not concur in this view, we do not determine the question at this time, since we are of the opinion that the motion to quash should have been sustained because the indictment fails- to state that the defendant was a treasurer of a city in this state, or that he bought; purchased, acquired, or traded in warrants of a city in this state. The language of the indictment is “* * * did then and there, being then and there a city officer, to wit: City Treasurer of the city of Pueblo, unlawfully buy, purchase, trade in and acquire certain city warrants of
It is unnecessary to notice tbe further assignments of error, some of wliicb are well taken, since tbe judgment must be reversed and tbe cause dismissed for tbe reason given.
Reversed
Chief Justice G-abbert and Mr. Justice Bailey concur.__