The Forrest City times., 1894-09-14
Report of Com mmissioners of
 Accounts.

To Hon. Grant Greene. Judge of St. Francis Circuit Court. Sept, term 1894.
 The undersigned by you appointed as commissioners of accounts for St. Francis county, having performed their duty as such, beg leave to present the following report of the same, to-wit:
 We met in the office of the clerk of the circuit court on the date fixed by law and proceeded to make examina- tion of the accounts of the various county officers, and of all persons re- quig'ed to make reports to or state ments with the county court.
 We examined i'll detail the allowances made by the county court in the last twelve months for all purposes, and find that in the main the county Judge has followed the law and the fee bill in such allowances Those instances in which enormous or illegal allowances were made we here set forth, to-wit:
 On county court record II , paragraph 125S. an allowance of $6. is made to Landvoigt & Fadakin for publishing notice to administrators and guardians. This was not properly charge against the county.
 Paragraph l264. An allowance of Sl5 is made to w. H. Paslay as county examiner. This claim was payable out of the General School Fund and not out of the county treasury.
 Paragraph l263. In a fee bill in case of the State of Arkansas against MOr- gan Shannon, presented by !. $. K. Cowan J. F. a charge is made for four subpoenas. Only two can be charged for in cases where the county pays costs. In paragraphs 1402. 1403, 1920, 1921 and 1923, in accounts presented by the same J. F.. the same error occurs.
 Paragraph 1297. Account of w. T. Ellis. J. F. the same overcharge occurs.
 Paragraph 1904. In the fee bill of J. 5. Jackson, J. F., in case of State vs John Johnson the same overcharge is made.
 Paragraph 1896. An allowance is made to c. C. Warr, J. F.. in case of State vs James Lee. Papers do not show the offense charged, whether fel- oily or not.
 Paragraph l40l. In fee bill pre- scented by J. E. Richards, J. r.. in case of State vs Tom Nichols. it appears that the Offense was mis demeanor, and the county not liable.
 Paragraph l404. In fee bill pre- sented by N. B. Nelson. J. F., it ap- Yt6tS liidt Ulln lSCC. Cudl SCu "lbu ~ mis demeanor was convicted and work ed out his fine on the county roads. The J. F. was allowed his costs out of the county treasury We submit this matter to your Honor, and ask your rul- ing upon it. The same facts apply to the following cases, before the same d. F.
 State vs Anderson Wood. State vs Sus,a Willic Sfufo RnCfnr HnOd State vs w. H. Rover. State vs RHu- ben Rorum. State vs Monroe Aadi- son aud State of Arkansas vs Mat Wick. In number of these cases d charge is made for more than two sub- poenaS.
 In Paragraph 14O5 and l465, in fee bills presented by G. w. Quinn, J. r.. we find the county court has allowed and paid costs in mis demean )r cases.
 Paragraph l536 allows a fee of $5 to an attorney for drawing contract for the keeping of the free ferry at the Cut Off. The Judge, we think, should do thls work himself
 Paragraph 1926 allows to s. F.. Schlenker, J. F., in case of State vs. Owen Henley, pay for four subpoenas.
 Paragraph 1927 is the fee bill for the inquest on lldffY WeUSttI. III thio iOc bill d charge is made for summoning twenty three witnesses. This appears to have been very large number of witnesses to use in such d case.
 We found that the cost of maintain ing the free ferry at Madison exceeds S400 per annum. This is d pretty heavy burden on an already impoverished county.
 We notice instances in which allow ances are made for the keeping Of pau pers outside of the poorhouse. We would recommend that an order be eil- tered of record in every instance where a person is adiudged a pauper.
 We alsn notice that many claims pre- seiled to the county for lumber used m bridges that are built by road oversseis are not sufficiently specific. The court