The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1889-03-16

to have paid to E. j. Kelly as balance OF
salary for the last six months of his Official
career. The two latter items we're in his
las, report, which has never been passed up
on by the board.
But one witness, f. j. Kelly, was placed
upon the stand. lie said that Mr.. Barte's
demands for money had been very heavy
during the last year of his incumbency, and
that in consequence he had received but
$500 90 of the $4500 90 due him as salary
for the past six months Of his deputyship'
The attorneys fees charged we're not regular
fees Of the Office.
The record of the Board was introduced
to show that the Board had authorized the
Probate Judge to order additional clerks in
the Probate Clerks office but that the Board
ad ordered the men employed to be dis
charged after the work was so far complete
as to meet its approval.
Mr.. Moloney, for the county, claimed that
Bartes was not entitled to receive attor'
ney's fees from parties having business in
the Probate Court, and was therefore, not
not the legal possessor Of the moneys thus
received. Whatever earnings Of the office
that were collected belonged to the county,
and out of these Bart,ls should have paid
himself and deputy.
The additional clerk hire which he claim
ed TO have paid for, WAS not authorized by
the Board of Supervisors, and if it had been
he would not be entitled to receive more
than S27l so, as he did not pay the clerk
Lock wood $SS. so of the $4,000, which he
claimed to have paid him.
There was $43.l0 which Bartel had paid
over to the county, which hc should not have
paid, but having paid this, he was not emit
tied to recover under the law.
Mr.. Fullerton, attorney for Bsrtels, said
that the $236.55, for attorneys fees was
earned, not in his official capacity as clerk
but charged by him to administrators, exec
utors and guardians for services rendered
outside of his official duties, and were moi
recoverable at the suit of the county upon
his official bonds. Mr.. Fullerton produced
authorities in support of his argument.
The fact that Bartels had employed @
clerk and paid him reasonable compensa
ton out of the moneys collected was not de-
med and he should receive credit for the
$500 90 involved. as the work was necessa
ry. The point was strictly legal one.
The county attorney objected to Bartels
receiving credit for the overpayment Of
1910. Mr.. Fullerton did not dwell upon
the matter. Other questions came up in the
case, but as they affected the sureties only
Mr.. Fullerton declined to discuss them, he
appearing only for Bartels.
Mr.. Fullerton admitted that Bartels was Ii
able for $409,7O the balance remaining after
substracting the sum in dispute, 1926 90 and
$500, i. e., S596.55, the 81 ,0O6.25 claimed by
the county, so that the judgment would rest
between the two figures, unless the Court
should strike out the $3.50 claimed by Mr.
Kelly, which MIR. Fullerton claims, ough
not to be paid by the sureties on Bartels
bond, but is a matter between Bartels auC
his deputy.
| The Court took the case under advisemen
and rendered his decision upon the conven
ing of the court yesterday morning, giving
judgment in favor of the county, O.
SlOO6.2 %, and sustaining the points Of Law
made by the county.
In deciding the case Judge Blanchard sale
it was clearly manifest that Bartes had moi
the privilege Of deciding whether the CLERK
hire should be increased or not. The matter
was entirely under the control of the County
Board. Ii was for the Board to say whether
he should do so, and the fact that the neces
ity for it existed could not be taken into &C
count. The Board had not ordered it and
refused to pay for it. and the fact that the
work had been done cut no figure The Court
decided that the $500 90 retained by Bartel'
was wronfully retained, and would so find
The claim Of Bsrtels to the 1926 55, re
tanned by him as attorneys fees was invalid
The amount had been charged on the books
of the Office as clerks fees, and was earned
while Bartels was an incumbent Of the of
fee. Under the law the clerk of cour
cannot practice in that court as an attorney
and therefore the fees thus collected coulC
not be retained even ifhe had been prsctic
ing attorney, which he was not. The fee
were for making copies of instruments
drawing orders, etc., and if they were charg
able at all, they certainly belonged to thu
county, as the law contemplates that all fee
Of the office shall be turned over to tn,
county and that the clerk..an his deputies
| should receive salaries out of the earning
of the office. If such fees were allowable
it would establish dangerous precedent
for clerks could, in such an event, msnufac
ture all kinds of fees at will. The Cour
would consider the $236.56 in the judg
ment, and render judgment for $lOO6.25 il
favor of the county.