Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1888-01-12
THE DEMOCRATIC NORTHWEST THURSDAY JANUARY 10 1888

that the Board OF Commissioners require all
such bills TO be fully itemized.
We find that the Board Of County School
Examiners have advertised more meetings
for the examination of applicants than by
law they are authorized 10 do. Under Sec
407l Of the Revised Statutes which provide
that the Board Of Examiners shall not hold
more than eighteen meetings in any one
year. We would recommend that not more
than eighteen meetings be advertised or
held.
We find also that during the year ending
September 1st, 1881, there was allowed by
the Commissioners, and paid out of the
County Treasury to the Probate Judge Of
this county, the sum of $4,000 for services
in criminal cases in the Probate Court du-
ring the period named. Upon examination
of the criminal docket of the Probate Court,
we find that during the year ending Sep
tember 1st, 1857, transcripts were filed in
that Court in but two (2) criminal cases.
Ono on a charge of petit larceny, filed May
18th, 1887, the other on a charge Of assault,
filed October 29th, 1887. In the first named
case the defendant plead guilty, and was
fined $40 and costs; in the other the case
was dismissed forwant of prosecution at the
instance of the prosecuting witness. This
was all the criminal business that came be-
fore that Court during the period for which
the allowance was mace. The Probate
criminal docket shows several cases of lu-
macy, and commitments to the Reform
School and Girls Industrial Home, but in
these cases the Probate Judges fees were
certified by him to the County Auditor, and
orders drawn for the same as provided by
statute. The law under which the allow
ance was made, is found in section 6410, of
the Revised Statutes of Ohio, and is in these
words THE Judges of said Probate Court
shall be paid for their services in criminal
cases such sum as the Commissioners of said
on11ntioc allOx- which chall no M aid
out of the County Treasury of said couu-
ties respectively, and said Probate Judges
shall not receive any compensation by way
of fees in any criminal business of which
they have jurisdiction; but all costs and all
fines by said Probate Courts imposed, in
cluding the fee of the Judge, shall be collect
ed in the same manner as fines and costs are
now collected by the Court of Common
Pleas, and the same by said Probate Judges
shall be paid into the county treasury"
This Statute cOntemplates an allowance to
the Probate Judge for services actually per-
formed by him in the disposition of crimi-
nal cases brought into his court and not by
way of bonus, 1t is but just to the Com
missioners 10 say, that in making this al
lowance, they were but following a prece-
| dent established in this county many
years ago, under the administration of
Judge Haag, as Probate Judge, when the
Common Pleas subdivision of which Henry
| county was Il pdIl, eluDEdCSu Il uuLl-
| ber Of counties, and the Court of Common
Pleas was Overburdened with business, most
of the minor cl ininal business of the CO ynty
was of necessity sent to the Probate Court
and at that time this allowance was fixed
by the Commissioners of this county. The
succeeding Boards of Commissioners have
since that time followed this precedent, with
out investigating the actual amount of Grim
inal business done by that court. This
should be changed. We recommend that ir
case the criminal jurisdiction of the Probate
Court of this county is not abolished by act
of the Legislature, which it should be, the
Commissioners hereafter require the Pro
bate Judge to file a report at the time O.
presenting his claim for services for allow
ance, showing the number of criminal case
disposed of, and the manner of disposal
during the period covered by his claim.
MARTIN KSUPp,
W. W. CAMPBELL, Committee.
r. w. CAHILL.