Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1883-08-10
THE AUDITORS COURT.
BEGINNING OF a TEDIOUS INQUIRx

with counsel before the county au0ltOro,
(who were represented by E. K. Martin,
esq., at 9 q. m. to day.
Mr.. Frank was sworn. He was shown
the bill of costs in the case of Manhart ct
al. and asked if it was his bill of costs in
said case he answered that it was. He
was asked if he received the complaints
and oaths in that case. Mr.. Atlee object
cd, but the witness was allowed to answer,
which he did afirmatively, adding that the
clerk of quarter sessions had the CON-
plants. The complaints were produced
and identified. The witness was asked if
he had issued two warrants In this case.
Mr.. Atlee objected and asked what was
the object of the question.
Mr.. Martin stated that but ono com.
plaint was charged for and two warrants
were issued.
Mr.. Brown said there were two warrants
here, and if the magistrate charged for
only one, the county was indebted to him
for the other. Witness answered that he
had issued two warrants, and had issued
subpGnas for twenty witnesses, admins
tered sixteen oaths and examined sixteen
witnesses. He produced his docket and
read the names of tho witnesses he had
had two examinations the accused being
heard separately !; April 18th and April
Goth, 1881 he committed them for trial at
court on the Goth of April; Mr.. Frank
said he took three recOgnizances in these
cases. Mr.. Martin asked him to explain
how he took them. Mr.. Frank explained
that he took one of the recognizances, and
committed the prisoners for trial because
they could not get bail in Columbia, but
on reaching Lancaster they went before
Alderman Barr, and he took tho other
two recognizances. In his bill he charged
for the three recognizances and
paid Alderman Barr 81 for those
taken by him. When he presented
his bill after the trial the clerk of
quarter sessions said that the two defend
ants having been tried together, one of the
recognizances should be stricken of, and
he made no objection !; this accounts for
there being only three instead of four
recognizances. In answer to q question
by Mr.. Martin. witness said tho recogniz
ances taken by him were for hearing and
those taken by Alderman Barr were for
appearance at court. Witness charged
for two commitments but when the pris-
oners reached Lancaster they were releas-
ed on bail by Alderman Barr. Witness
charged for the two returns to court but
the clerk of quarter sessions allowed him
for only one.
Mr.. Atles said that the position of
Squire Frank was that the bills having
been adjudicated by the clerk of court that
was an end of the matter, and the auditors
had no authority to investigate it.
In answer to a question witness said he
had sworn twenty witnesses but returned
to court only those whom he thought to
ba necessary.
In the case of Louisa Conner, libel,
witness charged for two recognizancss,
and one return.
Mr.. Atlee asked the auditors if they in
tended to go through all the bills on the
table before them, and said if they were
going to do 80 Mr.. Franks counsel
would refuse to go further in the examina-
tion.
Mr.. Brown said that counsel we're per-
mitting the auditors as a matter OF grace
to ask questions they had no right to ask;
that these bills had been regularly taxed
by the clerk of court, aud the county
commissioners themselves could not have
refused to pay them, and tho auditors had
no right to investigate them.
A few other bills were examined and q
few clerical errors, amounting to about 30
cents, were discovered. Mr.. Eaby, clerk Of
the court, acknowledged the errors to be
his own in making the additions. and not
errors of Mr.. Frank in making out the
bills.
Several of Squire Franks bills for dis
missed cases were produced, and he made
explanation of few disputed items of
costs.
In the case of John McClain, charged
with drunken and disorderly conduct,
Frederick Struck APPEARS as prosecutor,
and Henry Struck as a witness. Squire
Frank was asked if he committed McClain
on the testimony Of these Witnesses. He
answered that he did and in answer to
questions he said that Frederick Struck
was constable aud Henry Struck was his
son. Frederick Struck appears as prose
cutor in sixty or seventy-five dismissed
cases, aud Henry Struck as witness in
many of them.
A great deal of time was consumed in.
desultory controversy among counsel, and
finally the board adjourned until one
O'Clock p. m.
At o'clock the board reassembled and
compared number of Alderman Franks
bills with the entries in his docket, and
made note Of such of them as they deemed
to be irregular. They then adjourned until
Tuesday morning, when Squire Frank
will again appear before them.