The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1888-06-13

happened in the case of the State VS.. ]. G.
Ferguson, when there is but one verdict
rendered.
We also discovered where he had made
out duplicate charges for the same SER
vice; and in one or two instances where
he had collected costs from the County
when the same had been paid by the De-
PENDANTS.
Of course this was an oversight or mis-
take on his part, and he has promised to
refund the amount involved, some fifteen
or sixteen dollars, to the County.
We are clearly of the opinion that the
law contemplates that in the case of each
and every conviction in the Court of Ses-
sions there shall be entered up judgment
for the costs, &C., against the Defendants
and an execution issued for the same;
and in those cases where fines are impos-
ed the amount of such fine, together with
all the costs in the case, shall be set forth
| in said execution and the same entered in
the execution book of the Sheriff. Then
when such fine, costs, &C., are paid,
the same should be turned over to the
Sheriff with which he should charge him
self on his execution book, and when the
amount Of the fine which goes to the
County, is paid over to the County Treas
urer his receipt for the same should be
taken on the execution book, as we'll as
the receipt from the several persons to
whom the costs belong"
AS matters are now conducted there is
nothing of record, at least of permanent
character, to show whether defendant
who may be fined eyer pays such fine or
not. In such cases the Clerk usually gets
from the Sheriff and Trial Justice the
amount of their respective costs (this fire.
quently during the hours of Court), adds
the amount, together with his own costs,
to that of the fine and gives to the party q
receipt for the aggregate amount-intend-
ing at his leisure, or when the Court ad-
iourns to make proper disposal of the
matter; but in the rush of business it 10
possible for the whole transaction to escape
his memory and be entirely lost sight of.
Only in this way can we account tor the
fact that he has collected costs from the
County and the defendant in the same
case.
The School Commissioners Of.
flee.
Section 1919 of the Revised Statutes re-
quires that all pay certificates of Teachers
in the public schools shall Designed by at
least two Of the school trustees of the
school district wherein the service is rem
dered, and the correctness and legality
of the same sworn to by the person pre-
senting such claim, before it shall be ap-
proved by the School Commissioner.
He is also required by A. A. No. 56l, ap-'
proved Decent ber 26, 1884, to affix his seal
of office to all such claims after approving
the same. In neither Of these particulars
has the law been fully complied with, as
very few of the claims are sworn to at all
many of them are signed by only one
trustee, and not one in hundred of
them have the seal of Office af1ixed-thus
leaving gap for fraud.
1t being made the duty of the Grand
Jury to report any discrepancy between
the annual reports made to the Court by
the various officers required to make such
reports, we would call attention to the
very great discrepancy in the matter Of
the reports of the County Treasurer and
the School Commissioner for the last year.
In many instances the Treasurer re-
ports having paid amounts to teachers far
in excess of that reported by the School
Commissioner as having been approved
by him for the same teachers.
Were the facts reversed it would
not seem strange, as the conclu-
sion would be that all the APPROX
ed claims had not been presented for
payment; but it seems unnatural and
unaccountable that the Treasurer should
report as having paid more claims than
the School Commissioner reports as hav-
ing drawn. The first and most nat
ural impression which such state
of affairs creates is that there have
been fraudulent claims paid to the
extent of the difference in the two re-
ports.
While this is the natural and le-
gitimate conclusion to which to come, and
while we believe in all probability there
have been some such fraudulent claims
paid within the last five years (as the dis
crepancy in the reports Of these two Off
GERS for these years aggregate more than
five thousand dollars), still we are salts
fed that said discrepancy is to great ex-
tent, due to the fact that the Commission
er often approves claims and then forgets
or neglects to enter the same in his books.
The Grand Jury is also required to note
what may seem extravaganza in the dis
bursement of public funds. In this con-
nection we would mention the fact that
the average amount paid by the School
Commissioner for the last four years, in
the matter of advertising alone, reaches
two hundred and eighty-five dollars a
year or over eleven hundred dollars tor
the four years.
We would also call attention to the fact
that we find that Ex-School Commission
er Hodges was paid for the two years in
which he was in office, the sum of 1859
as salary, when according to law he
should have received not exceeding
81, 200.
Go..nfu Gton,unisSinnn nrS Off na