The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1873-10-09
e. F. MOVES, DISG0RGE 81,
gag SO.
Ohio Sues Her Governor to Recover
an Illegal Swag.
READ! READ!


Last week Prosecute Attorney Strong
of Hamilton County, commenced suit IN
behalf of the State OF Ohio against Govern
or Noyes on his bond to, recover an ille-
gal fee charged by him while Probate
Judge of Hamilton County, and paid him
out of the County Fund, for making to the
Auditor of State or Commissioner Of Sta
~tistical abstract from the records in his Of
fee of the births and deaths for the year
ending July IL, 1869.
The Enquirer has several times printed
the fac simiZe of this bill. Here is the pc
tition of the Prosecuting Attorney:
Court of Common Pleas. Hamilton Coun-
ty, O.-The State of Ohio VS.. Edward +.
Moves, Joseph Siefert and AnthoPy H.
Hinkle. The plaintiff says that on the
day of October, 1866, the defendant Ed
ward F. Noyes, was duly elected Probate
Judge of said county, to hold his Office for
the term of three years, from and after the
9th of February, 1867. The plaintiff fur
Their SAYS that the defendants above named
| by their writing obligatory, dated the 18th
of January, 1867, and by them signed and
sealed, acknowledged themselves to be
held and firmly bound unto the State of
Ohio in the penal sum of $1,000, and for
the payment of which to the plaintiff the
defendants Jointly bound themselves, their
heirs. executors and administrators, sub
iect to the condition in said writing oblig-
atory which, after reciting the election of
said Edward F. Noyes, and. tbs term for
which he held his office, as above set forth,
provided that if the said Edward F. Moves
shall truthfully and faithfully pay over all
moneys that by him be received IN his Of
fetal capacity, and shall truly enter and
record all orders, judgements and proceed
ings of said Court, and faithfully and i'm
pastially discharge and perform all duties
of said Office, then the above obligation be
void, otherwise to remain in fall force and
virtue"
The plaintiff says that after the execu-
ton of said writing obligatory as aforesaid,
to wit on the 23d day of January, 1867,
the Commissioners of said county duly ap-
proved and accepted the writing obligatory
and the defendants, Joseph Siefert and
Anthony H. Hinkle, as sureties thereon
of said Edward F. Noyes, Probate Judge,
as aforesaid, said bond having been first
approved by the then Prosecuting Attor-
ney of said county, and that after the ex-
ecution of said bond as aforesaid, to-wit,
on the 9th Of February, 1867, SAID Edward
F. Moves took and subscribed an oath in
dorsed upon said writing obligatory that
he would faithfully and impartially dis
charge the duties of Probate Judge OF said
county to the best of his skill and ability,
and that on the 9th of February, 1867, the
said Edward F. Noyes assumed the duties
of Probate Judge of said county, and con-
tinued SO to do until the 9th day ofFeb-
ruary, 1870.
The plaintiff further says that it was, as
provided by law, the duty of said Edward
F. Noyes, as Probate Judge Of said county,
to make a yearly report, without fee or
compensation, to the Secretary of State, OF
the births and deaths in said county; and
that the said Edward F. Noyes, as Pro-
bate Judge of said county, did make such
a report for the year ending July II. 1869.
The plaintiff further says, that although
the said Edward F. Moves was not entitled
to any fees for making a report of the
births and deaths, as above set forth, yet,
IL violation of law, he did, on the 9th day
of August, 1869, claim and receiye, from
the Treasurer of said county, as his fee foI
making such report for the year ending
July u, 1869, the sum of $l,249 5Qsusa-
The plaintiff further, says, that the said
f. F. Moves received the seeond1bptnsol
$1249 so, while acting in his official ca
pacity as Probate JudgeIof said cehntyi
That the said E. +. Noyes has failed topay
the same or any part thereof; that the
condition OF said bond has been violated;
that there is due from the defendants to
the plaintiff the said sum Of $l,249 so.
with interest from the 18th day of August.
1869.
Wherefore, the plaintiff asks judgement
against the defendants for the said sum o.
81, 249 80, with interest from the 9th day
of August, 1860.
RoB'T. O.. SrRoEG.
Prosecuting Attorney Hamilton Co., o