The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-18
The County Urged to Bring
Suit to Recover Large
Sums.
ASSESSOR sPITzER NEGLIGENT.
Scored by the Investigating Body
for Failure to Perform
His Duties.

1894, made Its final report to-day. 1t had
submitted a partial report on March 4,
and then adjourned from time to time to
hear reports from the experts at work on
the books of ex-County Clerk S. W. Boring,
where shortage of several thousand dol
lars was discovered. The report bearing
on the County Clerks Office is as follows:
In examining the books of the County
Clerks Office we find that there collected
fees for the Law Library OF $49 which were de-
posted in the County Treasurers Office that
should have been distributed to the Law
Library. We respectfully recommend that the
Supervisors issue warrant on the County
Treasury for $4S in favor Of and to the Law
Library.
That there were fees due to the county and
uncollected in Department One o. OF the Supe-
rior Court on January 3, 1895, of 1914 80.
That there were fees due the county and
uncollected in Department Two 60 of the Su-
perior Court, January 3, 1895, of 1925 80.
That there were fees due the county and IN
collected in the Probate Department of the
Superior Court on January 3, 1895, of $176S %.
That there were fees due the county and I'M
collected in insolvency cases on January s.,
1895, of S55 O5.
That there were eighteen "articles of incor-
poration" on file for which no fees were col
lected. Amount due to the county thereon,
$13 so.
That there were twenty marriage licenses
issued for which no fees were collected.
That there were four medical certificates
issued for which no fees were collected.
Amount due the county thereon being $4.
That there were two dental certificates is
sued for which no fees were collected. Amount
due the county thereon being 81.
Tha. there were six articles of copartnership
filed for which no fees were collected. Amount
due the county thereon being 50 10.
And for abstract of Judgment there were fees
not collected OF 81.
That there were deposited with the clerk of
the Board OF Supervisors on liquor licenses
wherein the application is on file, but the de-
post does not appear on the cashbook. The
amount due the county thereon being $50.
That the clerk is required by law to settle
with the Treasurer for the amount received by
him for fees from the cashbook, and we found
errors therein whereby there is still due the
county $l19 80.
That we found entries to the credit of liti-
giants Oh the clerks registers for which no
entries were made in the cashbook, conse-
quently not turned into the treasury. The
amount due the county thereon being 81 33 50.
That there were differences in the cash tags
81 so.
There were fifty-seven notices posted in pro-
bate cases by the County Clerks deputies
while acting as such, wherein the county was
paid 45 cents for fees each on same, when
the amount should have been 81 05 each,
according to the general instruction for col
lection of fees for clerical work in the Office.
The amount still due the county thereon being
$9l 20.
That we found errors in the cashbook by
which the Clerk, during the years 1S93-1S94,
paid money into the treasury, but which
rightfully should not have been paid into
same, the amount of which now due to said
ex-Clerk being $103 60.
That we found receipts for money paid out
on the receipt-books for which no entries were
made on the eashbook, and therefore not
collected from the treasury, and therefore
sci so. o. ~ 0N'N ie '-' '-'0un' Oeins
This Grand Jury earnestly recommends that
brought ROrin0
County Clerk, and his bondsmen for the fore
going amounts found to be due the county as
above set forth.
That we found that there are large num-
Der OF cases where money had been paid in by
litigants to pay for their accounts, which was
duly entered in the cashbook and paid into
the treasury, but which was not credited or
posted in the registers to the litigants' ac-
counts. We recommend that this court instruct
the clerk to investigate said accounts and pay
ments and that he be authorized and in
structed to enter the proper credit to the
proper accounts.
We further report that there has been about
537 notices in probate cases issued Qncluding
the ffty-seven notices hereinbefore referred
toy on which but as cents was charged or col
lected Whereas it has been customary for all
previous clerks to charge and collect So 05
each Tor same and turn it into the county
treasury.
That according to the instructions for the
charging and collection of fees for clerical
work in the clerks Office there should be
charged on each notice issued, to wit: First
Tor issuing the notice, 40 cents; second, for
three copies of same at 40 cents each, 81 20;
third, for the affidavit of posting on same, 80
cents; fourth, Tor filing the notice, Is cents;
total, 50 05
That this jury recommend that suit also be
commenced against the said ex-County Clerk
s. w. Boring, and his bondsmen for the collec-
ton of ST. 30 each on above notices, or the
amount not charged collected by said ex-
Clerk for same, and turned into the treasury
That we also find that there is large amount
on 10 re nf Z Y,,,tx
clerk which accumulated prior to the term
OF said s.. W. Boring and subsequent to the en-
actment OF the fee bill of 1871, amounting in
the aggregate to several thousand dollars and
we respectfully recommend that suits be
brought against the ex-County Clerks and
their bondsmen for said fees and if such suits
are not enforceable as against the litigants,
then that the respective amounts due from
such litigants be collected in some way to be
devised by the Honorable Board of Supervisors
The jury reported that the books of
County Recorder Owens had been ex-
amined and found to be corrected, and that
all money collected had been duly turned
into the treasury. Since March g. 1888.
there had been allowed extra pay to copy
lists beyond the salary of said Recorder as
allowed by law, the sum of $500 81
($1144 So of this sum being for copying
old records), and for abstract of mortgages
mended that no extra pay be allowed the
Recorder or any other person for making
the abstracts of mortgages, as the work
was required of the County Recorder by
statute. Such extra pay was construed as
additional salary and therefore uncon-
stitutional.
The books of County Assessor Spitzer's
Office showed that polltaxes had been col
lected in but sixteen precincts. The jury
reported that the County Assessor had
been very negligent in collecting poll
taxes, having collected but 55 per cent of
the registered voters in the sixteen pre-
cincts who were subject to polltax,
large percentage of those voters not paying
their polltax being property-ho.ders and
whose names were on the assessment rol |.
The books of the other officers were
found to be correct, with the exception of
few clerical errors, which have been rec
tilted.
KNIGHTS TEMPLAR EXCURSION.
San Jose Delegates to TrGUeI In Car
Loaded With Fruit.