The Eaton Democrat. (Eaton, Ohio) 1875-1903, 1877-04-19
80, the iurat was not signed by the Aud

so, the jurat was not signed by the Aud
itor. We suppose this to be an over
sight.
We further find that a considerable
portion of the payments embraced in
the items from the 9th to the 10Th, in
elusive: Mayors, Marshal's, Justices,
and Constable's fees, are not sustained
by vouchers in accordance with the
statute relating to such payments.
The act of March 30, 1867, amending
section 2 of the act defining the powers
and duties of Justices of the Peace and
Constables, in criminal cases, as amend
ed February Is, 1866, (vol. GA, p. 70 and
74), provides that the County Commits
sioners shall, at each quarterly session,
make an allowance to Constables, Mar
shals, Justices of the Peace, Police
Judges and Mayors, "for services in
criminal cases where the fees are not
paid by the State of Ohio, out of the
State Treasury. equal to their respec-
tive fees how provided by law in such
cases, which may be uncollectable, but
such allowance shall not exceed 500
for any n year. y \ = Provided,
further, that said Commissioners shall
not allow the feIs of any such officers
in cases where the State shall fail until
satisfied by the certificate o fsuch JUS
tice, Police Judge, or Mayor, before
whom such cast shall be heard, or 9TH
er proof that the prosecuting witness
was INDECENT and entirely unable to
pay the costs, or procure security for
the same"
The certificates ofJustices and May
ors submitted for our examination III
this class of cases, all fail to comply
strictly with this proviso. None of
them state that the prosecuting wit
ness WAS UNABLE TO PROCURE sECURI-
TY FOR COSTS. Several state simply
that the prosecuting witness was Sin
digent," some that complainant is in
digent and unable to pay costs here
in" Your Board may have had "oth-
er proof" on the points not covered
by the certificate, but we think it best
in all cases to require the certificates
to state ALL the facts. named in the
proviso.
There is also, we think: an irregu-
larity in payments of Justices, Con-
stables and Marshal's fees certified
by the Clerk of the Court of Common
L iCdS III buIS ClhSo VI S1oOS.
We are of opinion that even after a
criminal case, i'll which o Justice or
Mayor can require security for costs,
has been sent to Court, and the de-
PENDANT is there acquitted, or the State
for any reason shall fail unless the
transcript or copy from it showing
that this proviso has been complied
with, accompanies the Clerks certifi-
cate and cost bill, OF the Justice or
Mayor files originally with the Aud
itor, to be laid before the Commits
sioners a cost bill certified to as re-
quired by said proviso in said act,
such fees are not payable out of the
county treasury.
We find several cost bills certified
by the Clerk alone, in cases where the
State failed, in which are contained
Justices, Marshal's and Constable's
fees, which have been paid, without
evidence on file hat the prosecuting
witness was unable to pay or secure
the costs.
We recommend that hereafter q
strict compliance with the statue be
required.
Under a late decision of the Su-
preme Court the item of $57, paid
counsel for INDECENT prisoners, was
not payable out of the county treasu-
ry. The cases were not murder cases.
The Supreme Court in the cast refer
red to The State ex rel. Heating VS..
The Commissioners of Montgomery
Co., 26 o. S. r., 500, hold that, "Since
the passage of the act ofMarch 3, 1876,
C72 Ohio L., 46) Counsel assigned by
the Court to defend persons indicted
for crime, are not entitled to compen-
~sation, out of the County Treasury,
for services rendered under such ap-
pointments, except in cases, where
the person defended, was indicted for
a CAPITAL oFFENsE, or an offense pun
ishable by Imprisonment in the peni-
Tertiary FOR LIFE"
The vouchers on file in support of
the payments included in the 23d
item, Samuel Oldfather, Auditor,
show that he claims his salary under
the act of March 90, 1875, (vol. Y, p.
1851
This act was in force when Mr.. o.
came into office, Nov. 9, 1875, and re-
manned in force until the Sth day of
April, 1876, when it was repealed by
the Fee Act ofthe latter date, (vol. 10,
p. 1887. The latter act contains no
provisions for Auditors salary or fees,
except section 20, 19) which provides,
"The Auditor shall in all cases, be
paid his fees out of the county treasu-
nv, on the order of the County Com
missioners, who shall be satisfied of
the correctness of the account render
ed by the Auditor, and it shall be au-
thenticated by his oath or affirmation,
and filed with the County Treasurer"
1t is understood that the provisions
of the act of March 90, 1875, fixing the
salary and fees of the County Audi
tors, were repealed by mistake, as no.
thing, except Sec. 10 of act of 1876,
was substituted in their stead. Mr..
O., however, continued to draw his
salary under the said act of March 20,
1876, since its repeal. The Legislature
will, no doubt, pass, if they have not,
a proper act to adjust fees of Audi
tors, since the sth day of April, 1876.
By taking the act of 1875, as the
proper one, unQct WHICH MI. ".
should have drawn his salary, as well
after as before April 9Th, 1876, we
find that under it, he is entitled to
$1S0O,O0 per mum for his general
services.
The vouchers show that he has
drawn installments of his salary, as
follows:
Feb. 5, 1876, for quarter ending Feb.
9, 1876, $4,000
ending May 9th, 1880
Aug. IL, 1876, for quarter end
ing Aug. 9Th, 1876, 5000
1,375.OO
1t will be observed that APPARENT
LY and judging from the VOUCHER
ALONE, his second quarterly payment
is $500 in exces of the amount al
lowed by said act. Mr.. o., however,
explains that $500 of this payment
was for making out monthly reports
of the proceedings ofthe Commission
ers for publication. The vouchers