Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/846

 8S4 rSDESA^ BEFOBTEB. , �"MAKION COUKTT TBBASmiT EOBBBBT. �" On Thursday, the tenth day of October, 1876, at 7 o'clock p. m., the treasury of Marien county ivaa robbed of about $12,000. The deed was committed by two men with black velvet masks, etc. [Here follows a description of the men. ] Five thousand dollars for the arrest and convic- tion of the thieves. I^ive thousand dollars additional reward will be paid for the recovery of the money. �" By order of the board of supervisors, �" H. D. Lucas, Chairman." �There is no ambiguity in this paper. Thefe is nothing in it open to interpretation. It purports to be not the act of the individual members of the board. It is signed by the defendant Lucas as chairman of the board of supervisors, and in express terms "by order of the board of supervisors." The offered reward related to a public, not a private, matter. These defendants had no more interest as mere individuala in the arrest and conviction of the offenders than any other citizen. HoW is it possible that the plaintiffs could have misunderstood the offer as a proposition of mere individual oitizens to make themselves personally responsible for so large a sum, in the face of express terms showing that they were acting by order of the board of supervisors and there- fore as mere representatives of the board ? What possible terms could these defendants have used to show more explic- itly that they made the offer in their representative capacity as public officers, than the words they did use, "by order of the board of supervisors?" No averment in pleading can change the purport of these worda, and the court cannot by construction do violence to their plain meaning. The plain- tiff could not have understood that the defendant Lucas, in signing a paper as chairman and by order of the board, meant what lie did not say, namely: that he offered the reward without the order of the board, and as an individual, upon bis pei^onal responsibility. The intention of the parties to this contract is not to be mistaken, and its construction must follow the intention. �The decisions of the supreme court of lowa to the effect that the board of supervisors have no authority to offer such % reward had not been made when the reward was offered and acted upon. Both parties, doubtless, acted under a mis- take of law. It was very natural that they should both sup- ��� �