The Monmouth inquirer., 1889-04-18

mated authority TO perform this all i'm.
portant service; for, of course. there
can be no prosecution until it is ascer-
tanned that there is an Indebtedness to
prosecute for.
there would be q conflict with the de-
cisions of our courts which hold that a
Statute ought to be 80 construed that if
possible no clause, sentence or word
shall be superduous. void, or insignifi-
cant and in order to suppress the mis-
chief and advance the remedy.
But, il up to this point there remain
ed any doubt as to the duty of investi-
cation being cast by law upon the Audi.
tor. it must be speedily dispelled in my
| Judgment upon careful reading and
consideration of another clause of the
same section-of even greater signifi-
cance-in the light it throws upon this
question.
The clause referred to requires the
Auditor ''to examine carefully and to
audit and adjust all accounts
due to the said County of Monmouth,
and to certify the amount so adjusted by
him to the County Collector for
receipt" &c.
Now. certain license accounts, among
others, are due by law to the County.
These, the Auditor is enioined 'sto ex
anime carefully" so that he may truly
audit and adjust them, after doing which
he is required "to certify the amount so
adjusted to the County Collector for re-
ceipt," which receipt the law obliges
him to "countersign." Must not the
Auditor, therefore, s'go over the license
books and accounts OF license fees" in
detail. SO that his adjustment OF the
amount due the County and his certifi-
cate to the County Collector may be
what he undoubtedly always intends it
to be, correct and reliable result?
That one of the purposes of this in
vestigstion was to make statement OF
the result to the Board, pursuant to
their request. does not change the fact
that another purpose in the line of the
Auditors duty, to- wit: the ascertainment
of the fact whether or not there was any
Indebtedness to the County to prosecute
for must of necessity have been accom-
plished at the same time.
Indeed whether the Auditor perform
ed these services OF his own motion or
by request of the Board cannot affect
the legal question involved SO long as it
is clear that the services performed were
within the scope of his duties as defined
by the Statute.
Moreover in this connection it is es.
pecialIy significant that the request was
made upon the Auditor OF the County
of Monmouth in his official capacity and
the Auditors report was signed in the
same official form which clearly imports
that both the Board and the Auditor
then regarded the service as part of the
Auditors duty, whatever conclusion
/ may have been mistakenly reached there.
after.
Neither does it affect the question in
its legal aspect whether the Auditor had
been over this same ground before and
for greater certainty SO as to verify his
previous examination went over his work
again; although, of course, it is evident,
that if there had been no doubt as to the
absolute correctness of the first adjust
ment there would have been no neces-
sity for second examination. What
was The Auditors duty in making the
first adjustment is not changed into an
extra service by the fact of his making u
second examination.
i Besides there is nothing in the Board s
resolution which called upon the Auditor
to make second examination at all.
The Board had right to assume that
the Auditor had truly performed his
duties from year to year according to
law and therefore that he knew just how
the license account stood between the
County and the County Clerk at the
last annual May settlement Q8SS), and
hence that it would only be necessary
for him to begin at that date and 60
over said accounts down to the time OF
the report, thereby accepting the former
settlements as correct without further
veri6cation and covering the ground
since then only once.
My conclusion therefore is that the in.
vestigation OF the license accounts
in the office OF the County Clerk being a
part of the duties OF the County Auditor
extra compensation for the discharge OF
such duty cannot be legally claimed
from the County.
But while am entirely clear in the
conclusion above reached am equally
\ certainIthat theStatuts neither authorizes
nor requires "a monthly statement from
the Auditor"
II the Board could legally require the
Auditor to make a monthly statement
they could next exact a weekly report OF
at any time they might determine upon.
The Auditor. however, has made no
charge for making his report, but only
for the investigation itself.
i I would, therefore advise the Board
so that there may be no misapprehen-
sion hereafter to reconsider the resolu-
ton which called for a monthly state
ment from the Auditor.
It only remains to advise the Board
as to the legality Of Mr.. q. Ewing Pat
terson's bill which was presented in the
following form, to wit:
To assisting the County Auditor in inves-
tigating the books Of the County Clerk
preparing statements, etc., January,
1884 to January, 1883. S9.................... $25 OK
This bill was certified to by the Audi
tor and was paid by the Board. There
is no question but that the services were
performed at the Auditors request and
should have bapu maid for either hv