The Saline County journal. [volume] (Salina, Kan.) 1871-1893, 1872-09-19
EXHIBIT

| EXHIBIT
And also further certify this, the f.lowin. amounts
have i-ca paid by said board Of county commissioners
To J. q. MoieT accou:t of professional services,
| viz:
and j W RUSSELL, sheriff, plaintiffs, vs. X ~. ~
.Ju.y ., is7s-Gase oil i. p. r. r. Go. vs.. Pres
October ,, is.:-Cise Of X r. H. r. 60: v-; $.
AIr..ne-psrsonai property case Of isis-tpsr ~ =.
i,eceIr Der i, Is..-,a,e OF h p. X. IL. %. vs..
5. Amrine ct ai-personsl properly ease of ,,o n,
January L. is.s-Ca-c Of k r. r. Il. -. IS.
Prescott and cull'-ian; tax cas- 600 o.
Prescott and Lulp 80 o.
July =, ls..-Case of state W. Harvey 100 W
EXHIBIT "B.'
snd al so further certif. that the following amounts
have been paid to various persons, as stated, other
than the conaty attorney! Oh account OF professional
services, viz:
april -, is7s-rrofcssional services Of 4. II.
Case in ease Of state J. e ;Moh!er $50 90
May :, ls7l-Processioaal services ofJ. Il. Spi-
yry in case ofJ. &. Mohler ". Boart County =, ~.
January. >, Northumberland services of G. &.
sa1narv 'o = js,s".:roir,Hioaai aaryic"s Of j.
Humphrey during March term cfdistriet c'nrt 10 20
! April IL. is72-irue-si,nal services Of J &.
rs. Mo.lier 20 90
ter by assignment Of court in case Of State VS..
! Professional services of T. L. WiI!nsn by
ssirnnen, Of court i'm case >chrack 10 %
july (. Is.2-PrnfcssIonaI services Of q. q.
Lowe by assignment of justice IN case Of f. ~
Parker and NJ. Scarack INSTRUMENTATION. 20 %
july :. ig3s-Profc ssional services of James
| Humphrey asst slant counsel by direction Of
county commissioners In case of state W.
H. Harvey 100 90
Given under my hand ard Official seal this 18th day of
It's. September. 4. d lS.e. DAVID BEEBE,
Per CHAs. &. CULP, Deputy. County Clerk.
| EXHIBIT "E -
.sEc it ordered that the Treasurer OF Saline
pay to J. G., Mohier the sum OF seves hundred and
services in land tax cases, wit: Tn. X. p. Il. r.
TO. vs.. Jno. II Prescott, and same vs. Charles q;
states at washington, u: {. to he paid follows
two hundred and tty tao) dollars upon the order of
esol dollars npon IN. order oil the said j. g. Moher at
any time aiicr said cases shall have been submitted
10 said court -
STATE OF KANSAS, L.
! tounfy Of saline
4 do hereby certify that the above Is true and
rect copy of order passed 10y the board Of county
commissioners Of >alinc county Il session of said
board held on the 9Th day Of March. A p. ls.:.
Given under any hand and official sal this I:ih day of
! us. September, A. D. is's DAVID BtEBE,
/ Per Cu>s. 4. CULr, Deputy. County clerk.
From Exhibit "a" it will be seen
that he has already drawn as salary
sl,19l.O9 which is 1915 more than is
allowed by law. If he is allowed the
same rates up to the end of his present
term of Office, he will have received from
the county as salary, sl,69l.09, when
il should have been for the two years
Just 81, 900. In Exhibit "B' it is seen
that he has drawn sl7 60 as his per cent.
on fines, which is not provided for by
law. Among his numerous receipts"
we find that he has received 81 ,250.O0 in
one land tax case, where the amount in
controversy does not exceed S24. By
the orde: of the board Exhibit "E," he
will vet receive $500 more when the case
is submitted, which can be done on a
] simple brief at cost of about $50. Now
for this valuable @ work, for which he
is to receive $3.50, other attorneys, ADLER
and far wiser than he, would have re-
ceived perhaps nothing. This amount
by order of the commissioners, is to be
paid in cash, too. His fees then amount
in this case TO sl,154, while the county
in case the suit is decided in its favor,
will receive the enormous sum OF $24.
II is further seen BY Exhibi; &C. that
, in the Kansas Pacific Railway case, he has
drawn the sum of 5000 which is aH act
nal steal. No attorney in the State will
say honestly that he is entitled to If. In
the Harvey case he has already received
$500 when he should have done the
work for nothing, as his salary amply
PAYS him for that. He will also receive
500 more in case the suit goes to the
Supreme Court. While the county has
been bled so much in his 5ehaif, we find
/ in Exhibit d" that ether attorneys
have been employed to assist him at =
cost Of $40, while $50 have been paid
to counsel to prosecute the representatives
at lcr and order, the county attorney
himself. Nor for the grand total. We
find that he has already received the
sum Of ss,75s,69. That he is yet to re-
ce;ve. by order of the commissioners,
81 10000 That tie grad total up 10