
    (March 20, 1917.)
    C. E. CORKER, Appellant v. F. P. AKE, Respondent.
    [164 Pac. 87.]
    APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, for Elmore County. Hon. Chas. O. Stockslager, Judge.
    The facts in the above case are substantially the same as in the case of Corker v. Cowen, ante, p. 213, 164 Pac. 85.
    W. C. Howie, for Appellant.
    Clerks of school boards are not permitted to enter into any other agreements or allowances for compensation, nor be pecuniarily interested in any other contract made by the board (Sess. Laws 1911, p. 507, sec. 58g), and they are not permitted to collect anything other than allowed by law and fixed. (Clarke v. School Hist., 84 Ark. 516, 106 S. W. 677.)
    E. M. Wolfe, L. B. Green and Perky & Brinck, for Respondent.
    Respondent could not be removed from office under the provisions of sec. 7459, Rev. Codes. (Corker v. Pence, 12 Ida. 152, 85 Pac. 888.)
    The failure to properly itemize a claim or to furnish vouchers therewith is not a cause for the removal of an officer under the provisions of said section 7459. (Siete v. Superior Court, 114 Cal. 551, 46 Pae. 456; Triplett v. Hunter, 50 Cal. 644; Coliman v. Wanamaker, 27 Ida. 342, 149 Pac. 292.)
   PER CURIAM.

By stipulation, the above-entitled case is submitted with the case of Corker v. Cowen, ante, p. 213, 164 Pac. 85, the record in the latter case to constitute the record in the above-entitled case, with the following exception, to wit:

“That either of the parties to this action may introduce such additional evidence as they shall desire, and shall offer such modifications and reoffers of evidence as they shall desire.”

At the trial certain additional evidence was introduced by both parties to this action, but we do not think that any of the evidence so introduced materially differentiates the instant case from that of Corker v. Cowen, supra. On the authority of that case the judgment of the district court is affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.  