Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1870-08-19
Report Of Investigating Committee,
Appointed by the Court Of Common Pleas,
TO Investigate the Wood County Commits
sioners' Report for the Year ending Sep
tember 6, 1869.
TO The Honorable Court of Cos,msn Pleas, Wood
County, Ohio:
(ooNTINUED FROM LAST wEEK.)
ATToRNEYs' FEEs.


To The Honorable Court of Cosmsn Pieos, Wood
County, Ohio.
(ooNrINUED FROM LAST wEEK.)
ATToRSEYs' FEEs. i
IN the report of the commissioners TO tho court
we find the following items paid since Sept. o,
1868, 'o-wit:
Paid Pros Attorney .......'''s' s'''''''.sS 81 |
Paid Attorney fees IN various cases...... 1875
On examination Of check register for the issue
Of orders on common county fund we find the
items to be as follows:
Paid Alexander Brown for salary "..s s400
+" for drawing official
bonds ......... s.ss...s ...'...s IL |
Paid Alexander Brown for extra allowance
iu case of Ohio vs.. Donaldson ....... 35
-
.................... ..S4i7 |
While we do not think the above an unreason-
able allowance, we outsider the Sl2 for draw |
ing official bonds clearly without authority Of
law and would respectfully ask the court to 50
find ii we are correct for the future good welfare
of the county. We further ind payment to at
tprneys as follows;
j. II. Reid for fees in various cases.... s23S 20
Iissell Gorrill for fees in county seat go 81
James Murray for fees in ditch cases'" 200 OO
J. X. h J. NJ. HOrd in various cases. AIS 90
A. Shannon for fees IN various cases 90 90
j. G. Ice, retainer and counsel fee''... 40 90
Pros. Atty Seneca co. in case OF Ohio
VS.. Donaldson .......'... .....s''..' % 90
Dodge Il Tyler case of U. VS.. Wagstaff 25 90
j. f. Price, case Of o. VS.. Bceman.... 3j 90
-.
Total ...,................... 81 $50 81
making total paid attorneys other than prose
cutting attorney of 81 $50 81, Our understand
ing of the law is that the prosecuting attorney is
the legal adviser Of the officers of the county in
ali matters relating to the interest and welfare of
the county, and commissioners have no right
whatever 10 employ counsel other than the pros
", N1.a. .t,,s, hat all n
claims paid, excepting the aunt. paid pros, attpr
ney of Seneca county of S2j on allowance of
court the amt. paid Dodge & Tyler Of S25 and
S2j of the amt. paid J. +. Price on allowance Of
court, are illegally paid aud should be refunded
to the county. We cannot find any law TO war
rant or Justify the commissioners in so doing, and
believing. as ntimated above, that the statute
makes the prosecuting attorney the attorney for
the State cases in the county as well as attorney
for county Off GERS in the discharge Of their oth
eial duties. We consequently find that all these
claims paid Messrs. Reid, Bissell Gorrill, Jas.
Murray, J. X. & j. NJ. uord, j. A. Shannon, J.
q. Lee and $40 paid j. F. Price are paid illegal
", without authority Of law and should be re-
funded to the county treasury.
S. w. st. John recalled and asked when the
account Of j. II. Reid for 800 was allowd. He
answered by saying he expected it was Sept. 29,
1868, by the auditors stamp ON it. Says the
Juukins case of Junkins VS.. commissioners was
a road case in said acct The balance of the
acct, Peck ct al VS.. commissioners was in coun
ty-seat matters. Says this allowance was in full
to that date of all We owed him and all that Mr..
Reid claimed Of us. Says we take pains to as
certain, when claims are presented, that they are
in full Of all demlnds TO date. Mr.. st. John was
asked why they paid the claim Of March 16,
1868 to Mr.. Reid Of 500. He answered by say
ing, after examining the acct, that in part it
must have been double payment. Do not know
what the Myers case was. The Myers case vs..
= - 4 ~.
for 500 without date, with a credit OF so by au-
dtor, by the testimony of Mr. st. John taken
above and the stamp Of the auditor on same.
We find that second claim without date was
presented to the commissioners, which claim re-
fers to the bill allowed as above stated for which
an order was already allowed and issued Sept.
30, 1868, as being "allOwed about the 25th of
Sept, 1855" asking for a still further allowance
on il, March l6. 1869. The commissioners did al
low for the same services together with the SER
vices in case of Myers VS.. commissioners 500.
We next took another acct of j. II. Reid without
items. In the further examination of claims pre-
sented and allowed to j. ii. Reid, Mr. st. John
said he did not remember of any case that Mr..
Reid was attorney for commissioners in, except
ing in the county seat matters at the date of the
acct. or bill dated July 80. 1869. He says that
Il subsequent bill or acct. has been presented by
Mr.. Reid on which he presumed this acct. was
credited, and that the subsequent acct would
probably explain the services rendered in these
former accounts. John Yeager, sworn, saws, in
the matter Of the acct. of j. II. Reid presented
March l6, 1859, we had several attorneys en-
poyed, but so far rs related to attorneys fees
for cOunty-sea matters, | know nothing about
them. On examination of said acct. of $4lS 55
find it all for attorneys fees in cases in which
the commissioner had no power 10 employ conn
sci that we can find, which, including the $l90
above. make s60S 5j in all. The balance of
1916 40 was drawn Dec. 10, 1869. In making
1T. "A 10.
auditors Office Nos 2, ,l36. 1888 2,9ii to 2,9jl,
inclusive 2.4l3, 1856, 2,4jZ and 2,4jS. In mat
ter of the accts. of Bissell & Gorril we find that
the commissioners had no power whatever to
employ them and no power to pay them the $500
80 which they have allowed and paid to them at
sundry times in cases relating to removal of
county seat. In the matter of the claim OF Jas.
Murray, Mr.. st. John says the acct. was allowed
for Si05 in March, 1863, but there had been paid
ON it before $3.50 in cash aud taxes amounting
to $50 80, leaving balance Of $3.50 %, which
we find, aud took his receipt in full, think, and
Mr. Murray has done no business for us SINCE
April 8, 1869, we find that they allowed and
paid Mr.. Murray further sum Of 5000. We
refer to vouchers 492 and ., ,l72 in auditors of
! fee. We fnd that quite large number Of claims
! for attorneys fees, rendered to the county by
sundry persons previous to Sept. j, 1869, have
been paid since then by the commissioners.
1 Among these is an acct. presented by j. X. Il j..
/ VI. Hord for $3.50 for services in sundry ditch
clses. Said acct is without date. but is spccif-
| ic in saying "to Oct. 10, 1852" Bissell Il Cor
ril have been paid $50, j. G. Lee $780,, j. A.
shannon $50, &c. The $50 paid Bisscll & Cor
rill was for services in county seat contest, &c.
and Is only allowed BY 81. John and not audited
BY bpirl. The 1850 paid J. G. lee is not an acct
No claim is presented against the county what.
ever and no allowance is made to him By the
conlin any form whatever. The only voucher
is ashort note or letter from st. John, as
COM, that Mr.. Lee wants $50, aud request:
Mr.. Newton to give him an order for that amt
On this there is no allowance of any kind and
nothing on the Journal relating 10 it. The fol.
lowing is a true copy Of said note or letter whicl
we append as a SAM lie Of their reckessuess in
doing county business;
Bowling Green, Nov. l, 1869.
Mr.. J. b. Newton Dear Sir: j. q. Lee mt
one hundred and fifty dollars. think ii will b,
all right il you will draw an order for that amt
will stand for that amt. if Russell will no
sign. Yours truly,
s. w. St. John, Commissioner.
Mr. st. John, on an examination in regard /,
this letter, &c, sald that il was paid TO linn a
a lawyer in the county seat case. Atthe time h
spoke to us he was not at the office. He did no
give or present bill at the tipe. There never
has been a bill presented that know of. Ii ha
been paid but never allowed by commissioners
The money was simply drawn on this letter
Saws at tile time | wrote the letter | did no
intended to cover. There was a former bill Of
$40 allowed in June, 1869. There is no bill OF
acct. presented since Nov. |, 1869, by J. G. Lee
The letter on which the $3.50 was drawn wa
written at home. Says there is NJ bargain witt
Mr.. Lee as to what he was TO got for his services
He said his fee would be small for the am iun
of work he wodld have to do. Mr.. st. John sal,
he did not know positive that Mr.. Reid was EN-
ployed in cOunty-seat cases. H. has not dtnl
much Lately for us, but has not been formal
discharged. Bissell GOrril are not now IL
our employ. They were discharged about tn
time Mr.. Lee was retained rs our counsel. Arc
the bills on which orders Nos. . go, LAB 81
$50, ,Sl9, 1858, 1904, 2,0l6, 2,lF, 2,liS an,
2 l40 were drawn, are all the accounts alluwe,
and paid? do not consider the voucher marke,
1850 for $50 paid. 1t has been issued on an,
has my approval on back. Mr. vt. John SAYS
we asked Bssell 4 Gorrill il we were entitled h
counsel aud they said we were and we thereup
on allowed it. l cannot tell what Mr. Gurrill di,
in Columbus for US. Messrs. B. 4 q. did no
tell us we could pay for lobbying at Columbus
t.lI k,.sl -, 4