The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1894-08-10
R|vERS|DE'S BIG COMPLAINT,
The County Commissioners
Charged With Fraud.
A Combination to Juggle the Price
Of Property.
Riverside County Claims San Bsrnar-
dino Comfy Owes 1t S132,O27.0a
Instsad of $15,5S6.O2-A
Big Suit.

Messrs. Chapman & Hendrick Of this
city yesterday filed complaint in q suit
brought by Riverside county against
San Bernardino county.
The case promises to become q cele-
brated one before the final settlement of
the controversy between the two coun.
ties.
1t ia for an adjustment OF the interests
Arising out of the formation of River
side county, the new county claiming
that the commissioners have found the
amount owing to it by San Bernsrdino
county to be $l5.5S6.S2, when it should
be $132.027.09.
The complaint is long document and
goes into the details of the settlement
between the two counties.
Riverside county was organized May
9, 1898. The board of supervisors of
the new county appointed John G.
North and W. +. Wise to act ~ commits
sioners, and the supervisors OF San Der.
nsrdino county appointed HI. N. Barton
and Joseph Brown, the governor APP
pointing g. T. Stamm.
IL was the duty of the commissioners
to ascertain the indebtedness OF San
Bsrnardino county existing at the time
the act to create Riverside county took
effect, and also the total value of all
property at that time belonging to San
Bernardino county. 1t was also their
duty TO ascertain the value of the prop
erty in that portion set apart as River
side county, and adjust the differences.
The complaint alleges that soon after
the organization OF the commission
three ommissioners-H. M. Barton,
Joseph Brown and G. I. Stamm-com-
bined to make such settlement as to
fraudulently impose upon Riverside
county . greater proposition Of indebted
ness than was right and defrauding it
of the amount justly due for its proper
tion of the value of the property of San
Bernardino county over and above its
indebtedness.
The manner in which the plan Is al
legged to have been carried out forms an
interesting history and is described at
length in the complaint, The many
meetings of the commissioners, from the
FIRST one, when HI. M. Barton was elect
ed chairman, June %, 1898, to April Z,
1894, when they made their final deci-
sion, are referred to.
1t is alleged that against the request
of W. s. Wise and John g. North that
the county assessors of the two counties
prepare statement as basis, the com.
bination appointed Messrs. Barton and
North to collect data. There were nu-
merous adjournments without any buai-
ness being transacted until January %,
1894, when the commissioners adopted
resolution prescribing q certain order
OF business. They afterwards, it is al
legged, for the purpose Of carrying the
ALL
scinded the resolution and decided to
take evidence about values of property
st Riverside county first, instead Of San
Bernardino county, a. provided by the
first resolution.
In the final decision. April 5, 1894,
which Messrs. North and Wise voted
against, the majority found that the to.
tai indebtedness and liabilities of San
Bernardino county existing March IL,
1898. when the act took effect, was $685.
1929, and the total value of all prop.
erty belonging to the county at that time
was $2l3. 526.9 90. The assessed value of
all property in the county WAS $26, 1855,
SAT, while the assessed value of that por.
ton set apart as Riverside county was
So, 1872. 572. They found that the total
value of all the property in San Bernar-
dino county then exceeded tho total
amount of the excess Of indebtedness
and liabilities $40 .S07 SO. and that there
was no property belonging to San Ber-
nsrdino county in that part set apart as
Riverside county.
The commissioners decided that Riv-
erside county is entitled to part OF the
excess according to the following pro-
portion: Astthe assessed value OF all the
property in San Bernsrdino county was
to the assessed value of the property set
apart, so is the excess to the amount to
be paid by San Bernsrdino to Riverside
county. This they declared to be Sl5,-
$50 so.
The plaintiff alleges that these figures
are fraudulent; that the total indebted
ness of San Bernardino county March
IL, 1898, was $40, 1884, instead of $685.
1929; that the pretended indebtedness
was made by adding to the true indebt-
edness Sis, 294.O8, salaries of officers
IL, 1893, to January l., 1895. and by add
ing also $40. 139.42 interest on bonds
after March IL, 1898, to the time Of ma
turity. 1t is claimed that ell this was
not indebtedness in the meaning of the
act and was fraudulently allowed by the
combination.
1t ia further alleged that the total
value of property of San Bernardino
county March IL. 1893, was $465, 4S7. 20
instead OF $213. 1868 as given by the
combination; that the commissioners
unanimously agreed upon the amount of
cash on hand in the treasury, and the
second installment of taxss and reas-
sessment of the Southern Pacific Rail-
road company. the total amount OF
which was $141, 731.79. and that the
amount of property sold to the state for
taxes, which should enter into the set
Element, 81, 1921 that the commission
ers pretended to estimate all the balance
OF the property of San Bernardino