meanwhile should, as a rule, be deducted from the amount to which he would have been entitled." 603 There are authorities which hold that where police officers are temporarily suspended as provided by department or municipal regulations even for a cause afterward held insufficient, they are not entitled to wages during the suspension.604 A legal removal destroys any right to compensation, and this is sometimes effected by an abolition of the office or a reduction of the force.606 Suspensions properly made will affect the compensation of the police officer to the extent and in the manner which may be provided by the regulations of the department.607 $707. Pensions and beneficial funds. Long and faithful service in performing governmental duties, it has been held as a question of public policy, merits some provision from the state for old age and where injuries have been suffered in the discharge of such duties, the person receiving them or those dependent upon him are entitled to some consideration W. 844; Galvin v. City of St. Paul, 58 Minn. 475, 59 N. W. 1102. 603 City of Denver v. Burnett, 9 Colo. App. 531, 49 Pac. 378; City of Leadville v. Bishop, 14 Colo. App. 517, 61 Pac. 58; Buschmann v. City of New York, 35 Misc. 607, 72 N. Y. Supp. 127. 604 City of Steubenville v. Culp, 38 Ohio St. 18. 605 Queen v. City of Atlanta, 59 Ga. 318; State v. Williams, 6 S. D. 119, 60 N. W. 410; Meissner v. Boyle, 20 Utah, 316, 58 Pac. 1110. 606 State v. Police Com'rs of Kansas City, 80 Mo. App. 206; Neumeyer v. Krakel, 110 Ky. 624, 62 S. W. 518. A removal may be effected through a reduction in the force. Wilkinson v. Police Com'rs of Saginaw, 107 Mich. 394; City of Lincoln v. Yeomans, 34 Neb. 329, 51 N. W. 844; Boylan v. Newark Police Com'rs, 58 N. J. Law, 133, 32 Atl. 78; Leary v. City of Orange, 59 N. J. Law, 350; Cavanagh v. Po lice Com'rs of Hoboken, 59 N. J. Law, 412; People v. York, 43 App. Div. 444, 60 N. Y. Supp. 208; People v. Coler, 71 App. Div. 584, 76 N. Y. Supp. 205. Act abolishing office of chief of police of New York City not unconstitutional as depriving a person of property without due process of law because person filling the office had served the length of time which would entitle him to a pension for life. Venable v. Police Com'rs of Portland, 40 Or. 458, 67 Pac. 203; Heath v. Salt Lake City, 16 Utah, 374; Everill v. Swan, 17 Utah, 514, 55 Pac. 68; Meissner v. Boyle, 20 Utah, 316, 58 Pac. 1110. 607 McAuliffe v. City of New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216; Wellman v. Metropolitan Police of Detroit, 91 Mich. 427; Cooper v. Jersey City, 53 N. J. Law, 544; People v. McLean, 1 Misc. 463, 21 N. Y. Supp. 625; Eslinger v. Pratt, 14 Utah, 107, 46 Pac. 763. from the public in the defense of whose interests they were received. The efficiency of a police or fire department is largely increased through its establishment and maintenance upon a civil service basis and also by the creation of beneficial funds for use in the payment of pensions to members having served faithfully a prescribed length of time 608 or to those disabled while in the performance of their duties and the further payment of gratuities to the families of those who have died 609 or who have been killed or totally disabled.610 These funds are created by authority of law $11 and derived usually from one or both of two sources, namely, the enforced or voluntary contributions of the members of the department and receipts from what may be termed outside sources; consisting of special contributions from public funds or the setting aside of fees derived from certain sources. The right to participate in such funds depends entirely upon the language of the law 612 or regulation under which they are created. In construing such regulations or statutes, the purpose of the creation of the fund alone should be considered and payments from it should only be made to those who are entitled to its benefits considering the purpose. Favoritism or action toward that end should be avoided in the disbursement of what should be considered a trust fund. 608 Slevin v. Police Fund Com'rs, 123 Cal. 130, 55 Pac. 785, 44 L. R. A. 114; People v. Andrews, 89 Hun, 452, 35 N. Y. Supp. 311; People v. Matsell, 94 N. Y. 179. The establishment of a pension fund does not create in any of the beneficiaries a vested right to such sums they may receive but the board creating it has the authority in its discretion to discontinue the same. 609 Kavanagh v. Police Pension Fund Com'rs, 134 Cal. 50, 66 Pac. 36; Pennie v. Reis, 80 Cal. 266. An act creating such fund and providing for payment to the legal representatives of a police officer upon his death does not create a vested right and the act may be subsequently repealed. The repealing statute will not be regarded unconstitutional as depriving one of property without due process of law. 610 But see State v. Ziegenhein, 144 Mo. 283, 45 S. W. 1099, which holds an act providing for a police pension fund unconstitutional as an attempt "to grant public money or thing of value in aid of or to any individual" in violation of Const. art. 4, § 47. 611 Keyes v. City of New York, 165 N. Y. 654, 59 N. E. 1124. 612 Clarke v. Police & Health Ins. Board, 123 Cal. 24; Clarke v. Police Life & Health Ins. Board, 127 Cal. 550, 59 Pac. 994; People v. York. 41 App. Div. 419, 59 N. Y. Supp. 735. The merger of the municipalities of Brooklyn and New York cities does not forfeit the right of a Brooklyn policeman entitled to a § 708. Employment of members of the learned professions. It is often necessary for a public corporation to employ temporarily, for a particular case or special work, members of the learned professions or of the skilled trades. The authority of the corporation, where this is necessary, will depend upon the existence of the power and this is based upon the grant of the right 613 and the character of the purpose for which the employment is had.14 The condition and principle must be remembered that pension under the laws relative to that city, to a pension from the consolidated city. 613 Smith v. City of Sacramento, 13 Cal. 531; Modoc County v. Spencer, 103 Cal. 498, 37 Pac. 483, construing county government act, § 25, subds. 17 and 36. Knight v. Martin, 128 Cal. 245, 60 Pac. 849. Legislation attempting to give such authority may be unconstitutional. Franklin County v. Layman, 145 Ill 138, 33 N. E. 1094, affirming 43 Ill. App. 163. Under Starr & C. Ill. St. c. 34, § 24, which authorizes counties "to make all contracts and do all other acts in relation to the property and concerns of the county, necessary to the exercise of its corporate powers" a county is authorized to retain attorneys for the purpose of testing the validity of bonds issued by it and which it claims to be illegal. Curtis v. Gowan, 34 Ill. App. 516; Connolly v. Inhabitants of Beverly, 151 Mass. 437, 24 N. E. 404; Horn v. City of St. Paul, 80 Minn. 369, 83 N. W. 388. The authority to employ and compensate an attorney not a member of the regular legal department of the city was abrogated by Minn. Special Laws, 1891, c. 6, § 11. Cocke v. Copiah County Police, 38 Miss. 341; Marion County v. Taylor, 55 Miss. 184, construing Miss. Code, § 1385; Sears v. Gallatin County, 20 Mont. 462, 52 Pac. Abb. Corp. Vol. II — 45. 204, 40 L. R. A. 405; Kornburg v. Deer Lodge County Com'rs, 10 Mont. 325, 25 Pac. 1041; Freeman V. Brooks, 29 Misc. 719, 62 N. Y. Supp. 761. The water board of the city of Syracuse has power to employ special counsel. Quintard v. City of New York, 51 App. Div. 233, 64 N. Y. Supp. 904, considering Laws, 1880, c. 284 and Laws 1895, c. 954, relative to the employment of attorneys and the transaction of the law business of the City of Brooklyn. Lyman County v. State, 11 S. D. 391, 78 N. W. 17; Purnell v. Worth, 117 N. C. 157, 23 S. E. 161, 30 L. R. A. 262. A legislative committee under Laws 1895, p. 502, has no authority to employ counsel under a provision authorizing the payment of their necessary expenses. Montgomery v. Jackson County Sup'rs, 22 Wis. 69. Statutes conferring power on county supervisors "to make all contracts, and to do all other acts in relation to the property or concerns of the county, necessary to the exercise of its corporate or administrative powers," does not authorize the employment of aid for the district attorney in a criminal prosecution. Wilson V. Village of Omro Trustees, 52 Wis. 131; Hopper v. Ashland County, 84 Wis. 655, 54 N. W. 1024. 614 City of Denver v. Webber, 15 Colo. App. 511, 63 Pac. 804. The a public corporation is a governmental agency of exceedingly limited and restricted powers; that it is not empowered in its public capacity to engage in work or enterprises which are not germane to its functions as such and that it has not, therefore, the power to expend public moneys for other than public purposes.615 § 709. Special authority to employ. The authority to thus employ is not only controlled and limited by the principles above stated but in particular cases where the power exists and the purpose of the employment is a public one, it is necessary to consider further the question of the special au employment is authorized of a special attorney to appear in litigation arising out of proceedings to annex a town to an adjoining city. Fite v. Black, 92 Ga. 363, 17 S. E. 349. There is no liability resting upon a county to pay for the services of an attorney in hiring out convicts. Boise City v. Randall, 8 Idaho, 119, 66 Pac. 938; Ottawa Gaslight & Coke Co. v. People, 138 III. 336, 27 N. E. 924, following Sterling Gas Co. v. Higby, 134 Ill. 557, 25 N. E. 660. A county board is authorized to employ attorneys to collect delinquent taxes. Town of Bloomington v. Lillard, 39 Ill. App. 616. A town is authorized to employ attorneys to defend its interests in a cause involving the cancellation of spurious orders outstanding against it. Village of Harvey v. Wilson, 78 Ill. App. 544. Village trustees are authorized to employ an attorney to defend its interests in a proceeding which involves the very existence as a corporation of the village. Rush County Com'rs v. Cole, 2 Ind. App. 475, 28 N. E. 772; Julian v. State, 140 Ind. 581, 39 N. E. 923. There is no authority to officially employ counsel in the rendition of services, the object of which is to influence legislation. Garrigus V. Howard County Com'rs, 157 Ind. 103, 60 N. E. 948. An indispensable public necessity will authorize the employment of an expert accountant to examine the books and vouchers of various county officials. Cullen v. Town of Carthage, 103 Ind. 196. A town is authorized to employ counsel to defend an action for false imprisonment against a town marshal resulting from a discharge of his duty. Barr v. State, 148 Ind. 424, 47 N. E. 829; Templin v. Fremont Dist. Tp., 36 Iowa, 411. The president of a school dis trict has no authority to employ counsel at the expense of the district except in a case brought by or against it. Thatcher V. Jefferson County Com'rs, 13 Kan. 182; City of Owensboro v. Weir, 95 Ky. 158, 24 S. W. 115. The fact that the regular city attorney has so failed to present a case as to secure relief does not authorize the employment of other counsel. Jenney v. Mussey Tp., 121 Mich. 229, 80 N. W. 2. 615 See §§ 108 et seq.; 140 et seq.; and 416 et seq., ante. thority of the public officer or the public body by whom the contract of employment is made to bind the corporation by its action.616 The agency of a public official as representing his prin 616 Lassen County v. Shinn, 88 Cal. 510, 26 Pac. 365. Where the authority exists, the choice of a particular attorney is a matter of discretion and cannot be rejected. Harris v. Gibbins, 114 Cal. 418, 46 Pac. 292. A board of county supervisors may call in an expert to examine the books and accounts of a county officer. Rice v. Gwinn, 5 Idaho, 394, 49 Pac. 412; Castle v. Bannock County, 8 Idaho, 124, 67 Pac. 35; Platt County v. Knott, 99 Ill. App. 420. A county coroner is not authorized to employ a physician for the purpose of examining a dead body in order to enable him to give expert testimony at an inquest. Perry County Com'rs v. Lamax (Ind. App.) 31 N. E. 584; Woodruff v. Noble County Com'rs, 10 Ind. App. 179, 37 N. E. 732; Ripley County Com'rs v. Ward, 69 Ind. 441; Conner v. Franklin County Com'rs, 57 Ind. 15; Miller v. Embree, 88 Ind. 133. County commissioners cannot authorize the employment of an attorney to assist in the collection of delinquent taxes. Shirts v. Noblesville Tp., 122 Ind. 580, 24 N. E. 169; Bevington v. Woodbury County, 107 Iowa, 424, 78 N. W. 222. A county attorney is authorized to employ, under acts 21 Gen. Assem., c. 73, § 4, assistance in the prosecution of criminal cases in another county to which they were taken on a change of venue. Tesh v. Com., 34 Ky. (4 Dana) 522; Garrard County Court v. McKee, 74 Ky. (11 Bush) 234. The judgment of a county court, when authorized to employ counsel, as to the necessity for such employment can not be questioned. Simrall v. City of Covington (Ky.) 29 S. W. 880; City of Owensboro v. Weir, 95 Ky. 158, 24 S. W. 115; Police Jury of Parish of Avoyelles v. Corporation of Mansura, 107 La. 201, 31 So. 650; Barber v. City of Saginaw, 34 Mich. 52; Cahill v. Board of Auditors, 127 Mich. 487, 86 N. W. 950, 55 L. R. A. 493. The governor of Michigan has no authority at the expense of the state to engage counsel to assist in drafting statutes and amendments to the constitution. True V. Crow Wing County Com'rs, 83 Minn. 293, 86 N. W. 102. A board of county commissioners has the exclusive power to employ counsel to conduct litigation. The sheriff has no such authority. Carroll v. City of St. Louis, 12 Mo. 444; Butler v. Sullivan County, 108 Mo. 630, 18 S. W. 1142. A county court has no authority, under Rev. St. 1879, § 6893, to employ attorneys to assist in the collection of taxes. Reynolds v. Clark County, 162 Mo. 630, 63 S. W. 382. A county court has the right to employ an attorney to appear for the county in a case in which it is interested. State v. Edwards, 136 Mo. 360, 38 S. W. 73. A collector of taxes has, with the approval of the mayor, the authority, under Mo. Rev. St. 1889, § 7681, to employ attorneys in proper cases. Laws V. Harlan County, 12 Neb. 637. A county auditor has the discretionary power, under Neb. Revenue Laws 1879, § 160, to appoint a competent person to examine the treasurer's books. Hackett v. Rockingham County, |