The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1869-07-08
Card from Judge LOngbon.

couple OF political shysters hard up for
items and evidently afflicted with most insuffer-
able egotism and selEconceit who have hitherto
been vibrating from one party to the other and
have been repudlated by both have very mod
estly and ingenlously assumed the editorial
"WE," and after thus entrenching themselves
behind the "MGa Of StraO" who ostensibLy con-
ducts the Herald, have sneeringy insinuated
that have been charging more In the way Of
fees than the law allows; and they ask show 1t
comes that l charged Mr. Ramsey for his ap-
polntment as guardian, $3.50 more than John
son charged for the same service1" To this
have to say, that johnson never did all that the
law required, in the appointment of guardian,
nor In settling an account, nor In many other
things; and that since he went out of Office, the
General Assembly has required in all these cases,
more to be done by the Judge, than was hereto
fore required, and has increased his fees ac-
cordlngly.
And perhaps these fellows 10 their aston ishlng
wisdom can tell why johnson charged A. j.
Dever, guardian of Daniel NJ. Russell and Nan cy
McGillivray $500 for an Inventory for each Of
said wards, making 5000 where l should have
charged but $500 each, or why he required Mr.
Dever as guardian of the three Catlin ch lldren
to lc separate Inventory for each child and
charged him 5000, where would have allowed
him to file but one Inventory and have charged
him but $500 for all or why he charged an
attorney fee of $500 for each of said last named
wards for filing an account, when the law ex-
pressly says that no Probate Judge shall make
any such account; or why he charged Samuel
A. Stephenson administrator of ELI Plummer, a
attorney fec of $2 90 for filing his account, or
why he charged John ]. q. Evans administrator
of Samuel Davis, $3.50 for a short account for
which should have charged but $3.50; or why
he charged Mrs. Starr guardian of her children
1890 for nine Inventories, where would have
allowed but one Inventory, and charged but
800.
Scores of such cases might be cited to show
that my charges are more moderate than John
sons Notwithstanding the aforesaid increase of
fees, and the vastly increased amount Of labor
performed by me In every case over that of any
of my predecessors, all of whom loft undone,
much writing that tho law required them to do,
and which OH account OF their neglect had to be
done afterward and paid for by the county.
But all this is nothing. The only question ls,
have ever charged more than the law allows ?
l have seen Mr. Ramsey who says that he never
thoughtthat oyerchOrged him and that he does
not think so now, and that any mention OF II in
the Herald was never authorized by him, nor
done with his knowledge or consent.
presume the $500. 90 alluded to, Is for max
Ing Civil Docket which johnson ought to have
made but did not, for whith believed and still
believe he was paid, and finding the same still
neglected and undone the law required me to
make 1t, which did, and for which the county
Auditor on my certificate drew me an order on
the county Treasury according to law but the
Examining Committee having concluded that
said certificate was technically insufficient,
| (though far better than one upon which John
son drew several hundred dollars from the
Treasury immediately refunded tho money-a
hing never done before, either by johnson. or
any other county officer or other persons, against
whom, Examining Committees had reported for
drawing Illegal fees.
II the Auditor and Commissioners always did
their duty, no money could be Illegally drawn
from the county Treasury, but II by mistake,
Misrepresentation or otherwise any money should
thus be improperly drawn, 1t ought to be re-
funded and that did, and the same Examining
Committee, percelvug the justice of my claim
and the value Of the Docket, unanimously Joined
In a petition to the Commissioners to make mo
a compensation by virtue of another statut to
which only allowed about half as much as the
statute under which | had done the work, aud
the Commissioners therefore allowed me s1l3.s5
for work that really came 10 s27S6l.
Su flee II 10 say that have never in single
instance to my knowledge oyercharged anybodyi
many times have charged less than the law
allows, and often have charged nothing. have
recorded my Cost Bills, and the record Is fol
inspection, and ask any man to show II he can
when or where have ever charged or taken a
cent toO much, J. W. LONGBON.