Gallipolis journal. [volume] (Gallipolis, Ohio) 1837-1919, 1874-05-28
City VS.. Mason.

THE JURY:
Robert B. Carter, Dennis Jone
Chas. B. Robinson, Joseph Whit
James Grafton, Jno. j. Thomas
Alexander Mccall, Abraham Phi
| lips, William Lindsey, James {
Priestley, VIM. 7. Buckle and Eliza
Williams.
/ Mr.. MASON, on complaint of "
Z. S. HALL, was charged with re
ceiving in October last, a compensa
tion from the city for his services a
Councilman from the Third Ward 70
the preceding year. The law whicl
prohibits Councilman from receiv
ing pay for services rendered is sec
ton ninety-one of the Municipa
Code, and reads as follows:
SEC. 81. No member of the coun
Gil or alderman shall receive any
compensation for his services either
as councilman, alderman, committee
man or otherwise, except when acting
as Judge of election, when he shall
receive such compensation as is pro-
vided by law for judge of election.
1t was under this section that Mr..
MASON was complained of. Sec. l
of an Act passed May l, 1871, pro-
vides for the trial of a councilman for
violation of Sec. 81. The text of it
is as follows:
That on complaint in writing, un-
der oath, filed with the probate
Judge of the county by an elNctor or
citizen of the corporation signed and
by four other electors or
citizens of said corporation, charging
that any member of the council or al
derman has received any compensa-
tion, directly or indirectly, as coun-
Gilman, alderman, committeeman, or
otherwise, the probate judge shall
forthwith issue citation to said par
ty charged with said complaint for
his appearance before said probate
judge within ten days from the
filing of said complaint.
Sec. makes it the duty of the
City Solicitor to prosecute the com
plant, and provides for selecting a
jury, and the above jury was selected
The case was called at 10 o'clock
and the jury sworn. The first wit
ness sworn was Mr.. FORD, the City
Clerk. He stated that order No. 493
was drawn in favor of the Finance
Committee and received by Mr.. MIN
TURN, its chairman, as the stub re-
,eipt showed. Messrs. KERR, MIN
TURN and BAILEY refused to answer
he question as to whether the cOun-
Ill paid its members last year. Mr..
ALEsHIRE swore that an order of $763 |
vas drawn to pay debts, election ex-
,enses, etc, last Fall, and out of this
he Council paid each member $125.
lie did not know whether Mr.. MASON
yer received his or not. This is the
um of the testimony offered. The
efense produced no witnesses. The
rgument of attorneys lasted until
early 6 o'clock. The jury we're out
bout an hour, when they brought in
verdict of Guilty. This vacates
Ir. MAsoN's office. In order that
ur readers may know what follows
his verdict, we will say that section
of the law above referred to makes
! the duty of the Probate Judge, in
ase the accused is found guilty, to
make an order removing said officer
rom office, and forthwith transmit a
ertified copy of the same to the
President of the Council; that the
osts shall be charged upon either
corporation accused, or
distributed, and provides that if pro-
eedings in error be instituted by the
fficer complained of, to reverse or
AGATE the order of the Probate
,ourt, the officer removed shall not
xercise the functions of his office
ntil such order be finally reversed
r vacated.
This, We suppose, will end the case,
s a continuance of it in Court will
OF allow the incumbent to perform
ne duties of his office. The case of
ne City against Mr.. MINTURN has
ot been tried. In justice to Mr.. MA
ON we will say that he is not the
My one who has received pay, as it
Ias been the custom since 1869 for
he Council of our city to vote itself
'ay.
C.rp The 1o- oF @bo T 49,