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


) is only necessary to cite few specimen
!, cases as taken from his accounts. Fol
summoning the witnesses &c, in the case
of the State VS.. J. c. Ferguson his cost:
amounted to over six hundred dollars
In the case of the State vs.. Ellis and Ellis
charged with breach of trust with fraud
4 ulent intent, and which was dismissed af
ter being investigated because there was
nothing in it, his costs Amounted to ovel
one hundred and fifty dollars,-at leas
seventy five dollars more than the law al
lows according to our construction Of the
fee bill.
We have examined his accounts for the
last several years and find that the aver
age of such over charges will not fall very
much short of, if it does not fully reach
the sum of Three hundred dollars year
This for period of eight or ten years
the length of time he has been in office,
will aggregate from twenty-five hundred
to three thousand dollars.
We also find that it is his practice to
charge 50 for the attendance of his Dep
uty at the trial of the prisoners for whose
arrest he is paid so literally. For this we
can find no authority whatever. The
amount of such illegal charges, as we re-
gard them, will average at least fifty dol
lars year since he has been in Office.
We are also clearly of the opinion that
he misconstrues the law in the matter OF
mileage. The law is that he shall receive
cents mile for each mile necessarily
travelled in serving warrant or other pa
per. But instead of this, if he has war
rant for witness who lives in Pickens or
Oconee for instance, say sixty miles from
here, he charges Sc for mileage, although
he may simply write to the party and no.
tify him that he must appear at certain
time as witness in certain case. This
is one reason why his costs in the Fergu-
son case amounted to so much. He
was paid seven or eight dollars at each
trial of that case for notifying Rev. j. r.
Riley to appear as witness in the case,
or for sending him blank recognizance
to be signed by him for his appearance.
We also find that he frequently charges
the County for defraying the travelling
expenses of States witnesses, when said
witnesses are allowed mileage for that
very purpose. For instance he charged
the County $3.50 for hire Of conveyance
for Joseph McCanty, States witness in
the case of State US. VIM. McNeill. 1--WE
would state just here that the party who
brought McCanty 10 the Court informed
US that he was paid $l.5O by the Sheriff
for that service instead of $3.5O.) He
also frequently charges the County with
the Rail Road fare and hotel bill of his
Deputy in serving warrants for witnesses
in addition to thescharges under the head
of mileage. For this there is no authori-
ty of law.
The Clerks Office.
Section 74O Of General Statutes requires
the Clerk, Immediately after the adjourn
ment of each term Of the Court, to make
out a roll of the Jurors and Constables
who shall have attended the same, with
the amount due each one, and enter the
same on the Journal, and forthwith trans
nit to the County Commissioners certi-
fed copy of the same. The County Com
missioners informed US that he had never
made any such reports.
Section 756 Of Revised Statutes also
makes it his duty to make to said Com
missioners on the last day of October OF
each year, an account upon oath of all
/ fines and forfeitures inflicted by the
Court during the preceding year, and OF
the amounts had and received by him,
and of the manner in which said fines
were disposed of. This likewise he has
failed to do.
In addition to the last mentioned re-
port which he is to make to the County
Commissioners, he is required to make
on the first Wednesday in each month or
within ten days thereafter, report in
writing to the Auditor OF all moneys col
lected on account of licenses, fines, penal
ties, and forfeitures during the past
month. (See Section 759 Revised Stat
utes.) We have to report that in this par
ticular he has not complied with the law.
Section 1872 Revised Statutes prescribes
the books to be kept and used by the
Clerk. Among the list is book desig-
mated book of "Fines and Forfeitures''
in which shall be entered the names OF
all persons fined by the Court or whose
recognizance may be estreated, showing
the cause of fine, when fined, amount OF
fine, when collected, why not collected,
when paid over, to whom paid &c. He
Informed us that he had never kept any
such book as he saw no use for it. We
do not view it in that light as we regard
this as a most important book; and on
account of the failure on his part to keep
such book, it is out of the question for
any one, Except perhaps himself) to tell
what amount of money has been collect
ed by him from these several sources for
any one year or for the whole time since
he has been in office.
He is also required by law to keep an
other book in which he shall enter all
moneys received by him from Trial JUS
tees arising from the sale of unclaimed
estrays. For this book he likewise
thinks there is no use and therefore does
not keep it.
Although he admits he has collected
money from Trial Justices on account OF
the sale of such estrays, there is nothing
of record in his cffice to show such fact,
| o,1, ox,;Iopoa IF tho 5ispoSitiOn rnatp a