Wessington Springs herald. (Wessington Springs, Aurora County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1888-08-24

/
costs charged up to the plaintiff, viz:
l. III Tarble. We also found at the court
house the report Of justice Hackett
for the first quarter, approved April 4th
1887, which contained the following
fees, viz: Justices S345, Sheriffs $3.50
The query naturally arises why did Mr.
Hackett present bill to the county
when his docket showed that the costs
were charged upto the plaintiff. Did
he not or couldn't he collect them from
L IL Tarble?
The records in the case of Ter. VS.
| Hamblin. show a change Of venue from
| Justice Hackett and the transcript con-
tains among other things Justice fees
of 3.55 and Sheriff fees 1920. The case
was dismissed and the costs charged
up to the county. On the 18th day OF
April, 1887 Mr.. Hackett filed a bill
with the clerk in the uamblih case, Of
800 Justice fees and $50 Sheriff fees.
The bill was audited, allowed and war
rant ordered drawn. This was done
when Mr.. Hackett knew that his fees
were sent with the transcript and
should be collected or returned to the
county when the ease was disposed of.
On the 9Th day of April, Justice Lende-
bak filed his report in the same case.
The bill contained all the fees except
those Of Justice Hackett, tor which he
may be truly thankful, since it would
have put him in the same boat with
the sheriff and thereby have incurred
the displeasure OF the True
Republican. The bills in the
report were allowed including the
$50 transferred in the transcript and
reported the preceding day by Justice
Hackett and allowed by the board.
That is the way Mr.. Spears CHANGED to
get the 800 twice, for which he is held
criminally responsible. OF course the
board was not to blame, all they have
to dc is to allow BILLS and ask no ques
tions. The political enemies Of Spears
say he is to blame, he should have
known how much was coming to him
and when more warrants are showed
at him than he is entitled to, he
should refuse them. Perhaps so. Let
us see. There is a little more to this
story.
The amount allowed by tho board on
the Hamblin cases from Justice Linde-
bak' S report was $2o.15 and the stub Of
warrant No. 1899 shows $25.O5. IN the
report of justice Haclett for the same
quarter the Sheriff's fees in all the
cases except the Hamblln, amounts to
$23.2O. There is one case that of the
Territory VS.. a. Clark in which no fees
are returned. For these fees (Slo.O0)
the Sheriff fled his own bill, making
$500. Now is it strange that when
the Sheriff received warrant No 1884
for 1920, that he did not detect the
fact that the board had paid him the
9.2O OF the Uanblin case twice, when
he supposed the 1000 We're allowed and
especially since his bills are SO regular
ly cut. There seems to be no minute
on the records, OF this bill IN the Clark
case, so it seems that the county ows
the sheriff for that, which vii! offset
the $500 And When he received those
warrants he supposed he was receiving
what was due him, less the regular cut
In the StClair matter of course he
knew when he received the SsS32. so war
rant, that it contained that $780, But
remember that this was IN April 1887
and Mr.. Tarble paid it nearly i gear af-
forwards so that 1t may have been par
TALLY forgotten. But so certain was
the Sheriff about il. that he made two
Intellectual efforts to find out how much
it was, SO he could pay it. The county
Clerk said there was no record to be
found, justice Hackett said he had
made no report or received anything on
the fees, so the Sheriff concluded that
such a bill had never been allowed by
the board. hence his statement of two
weeks ago. Had not justice Racket
presented the Sheriff's fees in The st
Clair and Hamblin cases, for which the
Sheriff is net responsible, then the
county board would not have allowed
bills that made(D Sheriff Spears :dis-
honest. and its members blameless(?
nor would The True Republican .,be
called upon to raise such CRY about,
fraud