16 



of his duties under this act, payable out of the county treasury of his county, such 

 compensation as shall be determined by resolution of the board of supervisors of the 

 county before entering into the discharge of his or their duties." 



Sec. 6. Section six of said act is hereby amended so as to read as follows : 



"Sec. 6. Said county boards of horticultural commissioners shall have power to 

 remove auy local inspector who shall fail to perform the duties of his office." 



Sec. 7. (Repealed). 



Skc. 8. Section eight is hereby amended so as to read as follows, and to be known 

 as section seven of said act, viz : 



"Sec. 7. If any member of the county board of horticultural commissioners shall 

 fail to perform the duties of his office, as required by this act, he may be removed 

 from office by the board of supervisors, and the "vacancy thus formed shall be filled 

 'by appointment by the board of supervisors." 



Sec. 9. Section nine of said act is hereby amended so as to read as follows, and 

 to 'be known as section eight of said act, viz : 



"Sec. 8. It shall be the duty of the county board of horticultural commissioners 

 to keep a record of theirofficial doings, and to make a monthly report to the board 

 of supervisors, and the board of supervisors may withhold warrant for salary of 

 said members and inspectors thereof until such time as said report is made." 



Sec. 10. A new section is hereby added to said act, to be known as section nine, 

 and to read as follows, viz : 



"Sec. 9. All acts or parts of acts in conflict with the provisions of this act are 

 hereby repealed." 



Sec 11. This act shall take effect and be in force from and afterdts passage. 



Superior Court Decision. 

 Appointment of county boards of horticultural commissioners mandatory. 



Hon. John G. Pressley, judge of the superior court of Sonoma County, on the 19th 

 of June, 1889, rendered the following decision, in which the validity of the act 

 directing the boards of supervisors to-establish county boards of horticultural com- 

 missioners is sustained: 



E. A. Rogers v. The Board of Supervisors of Sonoma County. 



John Goss, esq., attorney for plaintiff. 



On the 19th of March an act of the legislature was approved, entitled "An act to 

 amend an act entitled 'An act to protect and promote horticultural interests of the 

 State,' approved March 14, 1881." 



This act (of March, 1889) provides that '^Yhenever a petition is presented to the 

 board of supervisors of any county, and signed by twenty-live or more persons who 

 are resident freeholders and possessors-of an orchard, or both, stating that certain or 

 all orchards, or nurseries, or trees of any variety, are infested with scale insects that 

 are destructive to trees, and praying that a commission be appointed by them, whose 

 duty it shall be to supervise their destruction as herein provided, the board of super- 

 visors shall, within twenty days thereafter, select three commissioners from the 

 county, to be known as a county board of horticultural commissioners." 



The duties of the board so appointed are declared by the act. It appears from the 

 complaint that in accordance with this act, a petition was presented to and filed 

 with the board of supervisors, signed by this plaintiff and twenty-six other persons 

 possessing the qualifications prescribed by the act, praying for the appointment of a 

 county board of horticultural commissioners for Sonoma County, and a demand was 

 made on the supervisors that they carry into effect the provisions of the- act and 

 appoint the commissioners. 



The board refused to appoint commissioners. 



Twenty days have expired since the filing of the petition and the demand for 

 action upon it, and still the board of supervisors refuse and neglect to make any 

 selections or appointment of commissioners. 



