Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1884-06-28
THE EXPERTS REPORT.
MOST STARTLING CONCLUSIONS
THEREIN STATED.

1
Nearly 400 Names We're On the
Assessment Roll-Ex.PrObate Judge
Dilley's Failure to Keep Record Of
HIS COurt-Etc.
, In the report of the last Grand Jury
the attention OF the Board of County
Commissioners is directed to the re-
port made over a year ago by the ex.
perts sworn to examine county affairs.
As many newcomers have settled here
since the report referred to vas made,
its principal points are unpublished,
that all may be informed in the prem
ises.
Shortly after the present county Off
Gals went into Office, in 1888, they Or
dered thorough examination of the
books and accounts of the retiring Off
GERS. This proved to be an arduous
task, as there was hardly one account
found correct, no system of checking
the accounts of one officer by those of
the other had been resorted to, in
some instances no books of record
had been kept, and everything was in
confusion.
After two or three months hard
work, the three experts sworn in for
the purpose made a lengthy report, in
which they stated the following con-
illusions
l. That the accounts Of the Treas
urer's Office were in such disorder that
the experts had been compelled to go
back to January l, 1879, to geta start
ing point.
2. That John Winklebach, the late
Treasurer (who resigned October l,
1881, still owed the county the sum
of S727.03.
3. That John Van Setback, who sue
ceeded John Winklebach, had over
paid s44.7O to the county when maxi
ing settlement at the expiration of his
term of Office.
4. That w. P. Parsons succeeded
John Van Schaick in the Treasurer's
Office July 5, 1882, and that OH retir-
ing the said Parsons had balance of
4,429.53 outstanding against him,
which is still unaccounted for, as the
Auditors books did not show any &C
count whatever of warrants redeemed
to offset the said $4,429.53.
5. That the receipts for gambling
licenses in 1881 exceeded those Of
1882 by $500.
6. That ex-Probate Judge Dilley
had kept no record of the proceedings
of his court from April rs, 1881, up
to January l, 1888.
Z. That ex-Assessor Dittoe still
owed the county 1903 80 on delin-
quent taxes of 1881. This was after
ward ''st, aig htencd out" by the Asses
sor producing receipts for the full
amount from Treasurer Parsons, but
the atter's books utterly fail to &C
count for the money.-REr.
8. That there was balance due the
county by the Assessor, on the 1882
settlement, of 81, 1861. The Asses.
sor claims to have receipts in bis pos
session that will offset this; but the ac-
count is still open and unbalanced,
aud stands against ex-Assessor Dittoe
and ex-Treasurer Parsons.
8 That, Notwithstanding the rapid
increase in population, the number of
poll and hospital taxes collected in
1882 was less than in 1881.
10. That only 574 poll taxes were
collected in 1882, while nearly 400
names appear Oh the assessment roll.
IL. That the books Of the outgoing
Commissioners failed to show any rec
ord of the warrants heretofore re-
deemed, and that it was therefore pos
sible for dishonest persons to present
the said redeemed warrants for pay
ment second time.
-. That the total value of assessa-
BILE property in 1881 was $G75,SO4,
while in 1882 it was 1851, 431.5O.
The report therefore shows ex.Treas-
urer w. p. Parsons to be indebted to
the county in the sum of $6,:329. So
which should be collected at once, if
the ex-offcial's bondsmen are solvent
1t also shows shows that ex-Assessor
Dittoe's accounts are still unbalanced
and that gentleman should lose nc
time in having the matter looked into.
and himself and his bondsmen dis
charged from further liability.
The Board of County Commission
ers having been urged to it by the
Grand Jury, have no choice in the
premises; and at their next meeting
they shc uld take steps to secure thu
payment of whatever amounts thu
ex-oilicials may be found to owe th'
county.
| As to ex-Probate Judge Dilley'
failure to keep a docket or record o