The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1889-03-30

The county Board had Jurisdiction OF the
matter and Its conclusion and final action
In the premises Is not subject 10 review by
the Court.
Counsel for defendant presented TO the
Court some equitable consideration why
Bartels should be allowed such extra clerk
hire, but the Court holds that the proper
tribunal TO act upon such considerations Is
the county Board.
The county under the law Is entitled to
recover said $4,000. II Bartels expended
that sum In necessary clerk hire, It is for
the county Board to determine whether or
not as against the sureties 1t will insist up.
on Its payment.
2. 1t appears from said stipulation that
Bartels received for services rendered by
him, while clerk, to administrators, execu-
tors and guardians, In advising them and
drafting reports, drawing orders, making
certified copies of papers, and files In the
office Of the clerk of the Probate Court
$4,000, which he did not account for In
his semi.annual report TO the county
Board. Bartels claims the same as attor'
ney's fees. II Is agreed that the same were
denominated by him as court costs In the
reports of administrators, executors and
guardians, wherein charge was made for
such services. The question arises wheth'
er moneys thus collected for such services
can be retained by the clerk as money
earned outside the line Of his official duties
or must an account therefore be rendered
TO the county Board.
- The practice of making charge for
such services and retaining 1t, was not a
conception of Mr.. Bartels. His predeces
sors, or some of them, did likewise, not
intending thereby to defraud any one.
The services In question were not services
rendered as an attorney, although claimed
as such. The position occupied by Bsrtels
AS clerk, the nature of the services render
ed,and the circumstances thereof precludes
the claim of attorneys fees. Even were
Mr.. Bartels a licensed attorney he could
not practice as such In a court of which he
was clerk Section ten of chapter thirteen
of the Revised Statutes entitled &C. An act to
revise the law In relation to attorneys and
counselors" prohibits clerk or deputy
clerk of a court Of record from practicing
as an attorney In the court of which he Is
clerk or deputy clerk. Such prohibition Is
founded on considerations of public policy.
The Court thinks that the same considera.
lions of public policy would preclude such
clerk from charging fee for services
rendered while In the discharge of his
duty as clerk for which no fee was provid'
ed for by law and retain the same as his
own. Such practice, If sanctioned, Is
liable to eliminate In serious consequent
ces. The clerk of a court undertakes to
discharge his official duties for the COM
pensation provided by law, and SO far as
business in his office is concerned, he
should not be allowed to perform services
for administrators, executors and guardi'
ans In the line of their official duties, for
which no fee is specifically allowed, and
charged therefor such compensation as
his Judgment dictates. Many reasons can
be suggested against tolerating such a
practice. 1t opens wide door for the ex-
ercise of the ingenuity of clerk TO make
private fee bill, whereby to increase the
perquisites and emOluments of his Office at
the expense of the county In providing
extra help to transact the business of the
office. 1t might lead to collision between
the clerk and administrators, executors
and guardians. Such officers might be
imposed upon. The practice. however
innOcently done, is vicious one In any
point Of view.
In this case the defendant has stipulated
that the 1896 IS In question was earned by
him when clerk, for services rendered to
administrators, executors and guardians, In
drafting reports, drawing orders, making
certified copies of papers and files In the
Probate clerks office.
The county provides an office for the
clerk of the Probate court with all the
appliances necessary for the transaction of
the business of the Probate court.
The compensation of the clerk for all the
work he does In that office In the line of
his official duties is fixed at a definite sum
by the county Board; all the earnings OF
the office in excess of the compensation
and expenses allowed by law are required
to be paid into the county treasury.
If the clerk prepares for an administrat-
or, ETC., an official report when he Is not
bound SO to do by law, and charges fees
for so doing, can he say this Is mine? |
am not required to account for It? Ad-
ministrators are compelled to make such
reports to the Probate court. The clerk OF
the court receives and files the same and
when so ordered spreads 1t upon the re-
cords of the court. As to the drawing Of
orders 1t is the duty of the clerk to enter
the court orders in due form upon the
records of the court. If the clerk writes
the order out in extenso before entering 1t
upon the records and receives fee for
that, can he likewise say this is mine?
II is all part of the routine business of
the office, some of which the clerk Is
bound to do and some not. AS to the fees
received for making certified copies OF the
papers and files in the Probate clerks Of
fee, the law as l understand requires the
clerk to furnish such copies when required,
and fixes the fees therefor. There can be
no question but that fees thus earned are
part of the earnings of the Office and must
be accounted for as such, what proportion
of the fees in question were thus earned
does not appear.
The Court holds that the facts in this
case preclude Mr.. Bartels from claiming
that the money in question was earned by
him outside of the line of his official duty.
The Court finds for the plaintiff in debt
100000 and damages 81 ,OO6,25.
Supervisor Doyle submitted the following
report which was adopted.
Mr.. Chairman, &C.: Your committee on
coal and gas claims would respectfully re-
port that they have examined all claims pre-
sented before them, and recommend the
payment of the following, and that the clerk
be directed to issue orders for the several