Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-07-22
GRIER MAKES ANSWER
To the Demand of the District Att0r-
ney for $4,000 a Year.
DISCREPANCY In THE FIGURES
Quoted by the County Controller and on
Mr. Burleighs Books.
THE NEWS OF THE COUNTY COURTS

Attorney James Fitzsimmons yesterday
filed in Common Pleas No. the answer of
Controller Grier to the mandamus proceed
ings brought by District Attorney Bur-
leigh to compel him to pay the District
Attorney his salary of $1,000 per year
under the act of 1891, instead of s., 900
under the act of 1871; to credit him with
the full amount of fees earned instead of but
two-thirdS, and allow as fees the proceeds
from forfeited recognizances
In his answer the Controller first recites
his taking the Office in January, 1891, and
the act of Assembly defining his duties.
Continuing, he states that under his sworn
duty he has kept and audited the accounts of
the District Attorney and has credited him
with the entire income of the said Office to
the present time and has allowed the Dis
trict Attorney two-thirds of the income OF
the said Office and to the Assistant District
Attorney one-third. This, he asserts, is
provided for by the act of 1867,
which says two-thirds of the fees
shall be taxed for the use of the District
Attorney and one-third for the use of the
states that the fees TO which the Office Of
the plaintiff is entitled are fully provided
for in the act of May IA. 1857, and the de-
fendant has not in any way interfered with
the taxing of such fees or in the allowance
of the schedule Of fees to the office of the
District Attorney, and is always ready and
willing to allow the plaintiff all the moneys
- al, ha
titled. He said further:
Falls Back on ths : CT OF 1861.
That the plaintiff some time prior 10 the
commencement of these proceedings. made
application to the respondent Tor warrant
for his salary for the months of May and
June, 1872, at the rate of $1,000 per annum
claiming the said amount to be due him un-
der the statutes of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The respondent, unoer
his sworn Duties as duly set out in
the act of May /, 1861 declined to
allow him the salary of 5000 per aunum,
believing that under the law the plaintiff
was not entitled to such a salary, but that
he was entitled to a salary for Nav and
June, 1892, at the rate of s., 900 per annum as
provided for by the act of April 6, ISL which
provides that the annual salary OF the Dis
trict Attorney shall be $4,000. That
under section Z OF this act all the
officials named in this act of which
the District Attorney is one and
their deputies and clerks shall be paid
for their services by fixed and specific
salaries, which shall be charged upon the
County Treasurer to the extent of the fees
paid in by each officer, respectively, or
earned where fees are chargeable upon the
County Treasury. If there has not been a
sum sufficient from fees received and paid
services rendered to paw the full amount OF
the salary of the officer holding said |
Office, he shall only receive such pro-
portion of his salary as shall be equal |
to the aggregate of the tees received and |
earned during his term in office a tier ravinp |
the deputies and clerks in full, and after
also paying the share of the fees due the |
Commonwealth, and al! the moneys accru- |
ing from fees above the salaries and the |
share of the State, shall accrue to the benefit |
of the county.
Criticising the District Attorney
The respondent further returns that if the
business of the Office of District At
rorney was conducted properly, the
fees earned by said Office would |
be amply sufficient to pay the salary |
OF the District Attorney and his clerks. But |
the respondent AYERS that the business of |
the Office has not been dispatched as il |
should have been. This will appear on re- |
ference to schedule of the earnings of the
office While conducted by R. II. Johnston,
Esq, deceased, from July l, 1890 to July /,
1891, and also of that of the plaintiff from
July l, 1891, to July ], 1892 which is here at
tached. That II. III. Johnston was not
the plaintiff by an order of ycur
honorable court. and he conducted the
business of the said office individually, ex-
cept as assisted by others called in by him |
self,and the record shows that in one year he |
of 2,e53 cases, showing the earnings
of said office for that year to be 50 547 and |
the two-thirds OF the fund credited to the
District Attorney to be s6,S64 II: that dur
ing the year from July /. 1881, to july j, 1882.
when the plaintiff had the charge of the of,
hce, with the assistance of a deputy district
attorhey lor SIX months, the number of
cases disposed of WIS 2317, showing an in
crease of only Ga cases over those disposed
OF by Mr.. Johnston for the same length Of
time.
business OF the office as conducted bv the re-
lator was not conducted with the dispatch
requisite for the discharge of the duties of
his important Office. That the fees earned |
by the office during the incumbency of
Clarence Burleigh, the relator, amounted to
sl0,l77 G6 and the two-thirds OF which fund
"a aXable to the District Attorney would be
s6,7s5 10.
he Question of Forfeited Reco:n'zances.
That the amount OF fore ted recognizances
by the said relator during said
year amounted to s., ,9Cs That there was also
the sum of 81, coo collected at No. 66I, Decem-
Der term, 1889, which amount was not COL
ected by the relator, but was collected by
Mr.. Davis under a special contract with the |
County Commissioners and which should
not be included in the amount of forfeited
|
That the respondent AYERS also and re- |
spectfully submits to the court that the |
relator is not entitled to have the amounts |
collected on forfeited recognizances taxed
rs fees of the office of District Attorney |
That under the act of July 30, 1912, there
we're certain percentages to be allowed nv |
he court to District Attorneys, but that
Inder the act OF 1857 the fees for the office of
District Attorney were specifically fixed.
md repeating by implication the act of lS4l
70 far as the District Attorney is concerned.
That il, however. under the act of 1872, the
district Attorney was entitled to receive so |
'er cent of the fees and percentages allowed
m forfeited 1ecognizances still under the |
tatute OF 1874 and under the act of March 81, |
s76, the entire legislation respecting the
percentages allowed on forfeited recoy.
Iizances in favor of the District ATTORNEY
vas repealed, and the same is not
pplicaf5le PIP +,a to the. the District Attor-
That under the act of April 6. 1871, an act
pecially applying to the county of Allie |
heny. the salary of the District Attorney is
fixed and settled, and the salary |
provided for by the act is the salary of the |
district Attorney for the county of Allie
heny until changed by future legislation.
Places the Salary at $4,000,
The respondent further returns that the
alary of the District Attorney of the county
{ Allegheny is at present 1000 per annum.
hat anything paid into the county treasury
omfng from forfeited recognizances be-
0ngs to the county, and does not i'm
ny way belong to the office of the District
.ttorney. and should not be taxed in favor
{ the Office, out of which salaries of the |
district Attorney. Assistant District Al.
Orney and the clerks of the office should he |
aid. And the respondent denies that there |
any statute in existence and in force in |
he county OF Allegheny that will allow the |
district Attorney the salary of 5000 per