The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-07-12
FOR FINAL ACTION.
Judge Humes TO Decide Case
of Ex-Clerk Spencer.
The BALANCE NOW IN DISPUTE


The case Of King county against W. B.
spencer, whose accounts as county clerk
nave never been satisfactorily adjusted,
came up again in the superior court yes
teruay IA he fling OF an agreement or
submitted case. between 8. II. Piles, on
Denaf OF the county, and W. B. Spencer
aud his bondsmen, which sets forth the
iacts In the case and which Is to be Sub
nitted 10 Judge Humes for final judg-
ment. the agreement being that his de-
cislon shall be accepted by both sides.
The submitted case between the county
ana Spencer and his bondsman shows
that the county claims that Spencer is in
ceOted TO il in certain sums shown by the
experts report given Herewith: that
Spencer denies any debt and submits a
written statement of Judge Richard os-
BORN and ex-Judge I. ]. Lichtenberg TO
the effect that great many of the items
which the county has charged TO Spencer
are Tor services for which Spencer received
no pay, and that they were performed I'M
der the direction Of the court without pay.
because the court considered it more ex-
pensive to the county to interrupt the due
course OF business during the trial of
cases than for the clerk to enforce
payment for such services during the trial,
many OF such services being in amounts
from 10 to 80 cents. Ex-Judge Lichtenberg
certifies that at least $1,000 of such serv-
ices were performed in his court under his
direction without pay. Many of the items
OF charge made by the county against
Spencer are for continuances, motions,
demurrers. etc. which Mr.. Spencer claims
he could not collect and which arose in
this wise: Under the old law the clerk
was required to collect so cents every time
a motion or demurrer was continued. FIRE.
quently they would be continued from
week to week, sometimes because
the court was unable to hear
them, and sometimes on account of
the absence of one or both of the counsel.
In this manner many hundreds of dollars
were earned but not collected by the
clerk because. as he contends, parties in
such cases we're not in court at the time of
the continuance, either in person or by
counsel. and frequently when present he
was unable 10 collect the fees.
Mr.. Spencer will be remembered as the
county clerk who. failing to get the re-
nomination. refused to vacate his Office
when T. w. Gordon, his successor, de-
manded possession on the ground that his
term ended in March, not January.
meeting an adverse decision in the supe-
rior court. he waived appeal and allowed
Mr.. Gordon TO assume the Office. When
he turned over his accounts there was
dispute az to balances. and the county
commissioners had his books exported,
the result showing a difference between
services rendered and cash accounted for
of s., s66.6s. r..Spencer also went into
the matter. and unearthed q lot of cross
credits; also paid over in cash 81, 675. 50. all
of which materially reduced the original
difference. The final balance is accounted
in the submitted cases filed yesterday.
The experts report gives a statement
showing the nature of the items charged
against Spencer. The first item consists
of "civil fees earned and unreported," due
King county, $2.O67.S5. being differences
between the appearance" and fee" sides
Of the docket compared with the earnings
and cash reported In the cashbook. The
difference between the amount of
service rendered Tor at least noted) on the
appearance side of the docket and the cor
responding entries of cash receipts as
shown on the fee side of the same cases is
81. 777.oS. which amounts taking it for
granted that the books are somewhere near
correctly would represent the items
Mr.. Spencer claims TO be serv-
ices rendered by him under
the order and direction of the court, and
for which he claims he was prevented
from collecting any fec by virtue of the
order of the court. These items appear
largely to be for continuances. transfers of
cases from one court to another, swearing
witnesses, fling exhibits and like services.
The second item consists OF criminal fees
earned, 1886, 7s. similar 10 the ones already
specified, and about the same proportion
appears TO be for services rendered for
which no fees were collected. The third
item is for probate fees earned and
unreported. $l65.35, which amount is
said TO be correct and should be collected.
The fourth item is for notarial fees. 81; the
NTH tor naturalization fees, 1924. both of
which accounts are due. The sixth item
is for services that should have been rem
dersd If the fees had been collected in ad-
vance, SAG 30 Mr.. Spencer claims that
he should not be held responsible for this
amount, as the services were not actually
rendered, there being no cash on hand TO
pay for the same. Had the cash
been collected in advance, certain
services could have been performed
by the CLERK and lawfully charged
10 the parties, Dat a. pA'cAEAslS AAaA lASFe
was no cash on hand to Pay for these ser
vices, the clerk declined TO perform them,
making note only on the appearance
side OF the docket OF the condition or dis
position of the case. The next three
items consist of the following: Satislac-
sions earned and uureported, s2ls 50;
criminal bail forfeited, unreported. 500;
fines collected. unreported. 500 The
totals OF all these items aggregate 50 s66eS.
Against these items the county auditor
recommends the following sums which
should be credited TO Spencer. viz;
Amount overpaid T. ". Gordon. s5o05;
fees uneoliecied. open cases. page IbS
sIu6 10: certificate of experts, tiied Septem-
Der IS. ISIS. $3.50; certificate OF experts
tiled September -. 1888 si9s IS; natural
nation papers charged. undelivered. sil4:
paid county treasurer by Spencer. cash,
St675 81; total. 2lsLsS
This would leave the apparent shortage
Sl6S4TS 1t from this amount the $&Qs. -.
covered by item SIX, Is deducted the d.fier-
enee would be 81. 25s.5S which. in al prob
ability, woald partially. AZ least. CORE
spond with the items going 10 make Up
the difference Of 81. 777.08 between the zap
pesrAace" and .'fes" side 81 the docket
The aiidaxits Of Judge Osborn and sx-
Judge Iichienherg will reasonably &C
count for the balance Of 81, -. s.. on which
Judge Hames sill be asked 70 give his
nnal decision.