The herald., 1896-02-03
How the Public Administrator
Escaped a "Roast"
WERE LOADED FOR BEAR
But in Some Manner the Trap Was
Sprung Too Soon
An Alleged Conference Between Judges Smith
and Clark Which Had Strong
Bearing on the Case

The grand jury has already made three
reports and is at work on the fourth, which
will probably wind up its labors. These
reports have been formidable documents of
many pages each, and while some of the
matters touched upon have been interest
ing reading, at least one of the reports
would have been better if it had been made
public as 1t was at first adopted and before
any pruning was done. And thereby hangs
q tale.
1t will be remembered that several weeks
ago THE HERALD published statement
! to the effect that the coroner had been
among the Witnesses, and from the fact
that he was ordered to bring his official
records, together with several other sig
nificaut incidents, led one to the belief
that tho affairs of the public administrator
were to be inquired into. This fact was
also published in The HERALD, and the
forthcoming report wss eagerly awaited by
Mr.. Kelsey and his friends. The report
was published in due time, and while Mr..
Kelsey's Office came in for mild scoring
and the recommendation that he should
make his headquarters at the courthouse
| with one or two sample cases to show how
estates shrink during probate, there was
nothing in the document to offend the most
| fastidious.
But the report as published and the re-
port as at first agreed upon by the grand
jury are two very different matters, and
the way in which the change was brought
about makes very pretty little story.
The grand jury had prepared very nice
| 'sroast" for Mr.. Kelsey, and, incidentally,
Judge Clark, and but for the fact of some-
body leaking, the matter would have gone
through; furthermore, it might have had
some bearing on the action of the Republi-
can county convention this fall when they
como to make nominations for the Office
| of superior judges, four of the incumbents
retiring this year. When the investigation
| of the public administrator was started
| it was thought by the inquisitors that they
would get rich results: AS is generally
known, it is the duty of the coroner whom
he finds money. jewelry or other valuables
| on the dead bodies on which inquests are
| held to make record of the same in his
| book, and turn the articles over to either
the public administrator, where they
| amount to anything, or to cover the Same
into the county treasury, taking a
receipt for the same, which is posted in his
| book as voucher. Thus it will be-
seen that the coroner's record is a check
on the public admnistrator-when the
record is kept up. On just what specific case
| complaint was made against the public ad-
| ministrator Is not known, but at any rate
the coroner was summoned to appear be-
| fore the jury with his official record. He
did SO, but the only record Of personal
property was since january, 1895, when
| he entered on the duties of his office.
Prior to that time there was not a scratch
| of a pen to indicate that cent OF money
or a piece of jewelry had ever come into
the possession of the coroner in his official
capacity, his predecessors having evil
IDENTIFY thought that the blanks on the
record were merely for the purpose of
filling out the page, as they had left them
all blank.
There being nothing to check up from,
! this branch of the investigation was aban-
doned, and the jurymen started out on
new tack. There was much debate over
| what was called the excessive cost of pro-
bate, special stress being laid on the Ward,
! Huffman and Mullen cases. The fact was
shown that in the case of Ward an estate
of $7276.S5 dwindled down to $3623.s5
in the course of probate, of which 5000
went to attorneys. In the case of Linda
Huffman, where the estate consisted of
1914. Ii in money and trunk and con-
tents valued at $34 the attorney was al
lowed $75. In the case of Mullen, where
the estate consisted of 1912 in money the
attorney was allowed $75. When the fact
was emphasized that in not one of these
cases was there anything in the shape of
contest, only the bare legal routine, several
of the jurymen almost went into spasms
over what was denounced as outrageous
overcharging, an outrage on the people,
etc.. and a general cry went up that some
thing must be done. 1t was explained to
tho jurors that all probate business was
transacted before Judge Clark, and
that il there was any over-charging
that gentleman was the responsible
party, as he alone passed on these ac-
counts, and they were allowed or disal-
lowed as he pleased. 1t is not violating
any confidence to say that for O timo
Judge Clark was handled without gloves,
and when the report was made up his
honor came in for very severe criticism
for allowing excessive charges. This would
very probably have gone through all right,
but for the fact that in some way Judge
Clark learned of the action that had been
taken, and that it met with the approval of
Judge Smith. Judge Clark is a man of
and quick action, and without wasting any
time he hunted up his brother judge to find
out what it all meant. The talk between
the two gentlemen, it is said, was
very brief, but to tho point. 1t is claimed
that Judge Clark told Judge Smith that
he did not propose to have him use the
grand jury against him, and intmated
that there was something of q political
character about the matter. both judges
terms expire this year, and both are candi-
dates for re-election.) He did not propose
TO have himself killed off as candidate
without at least very vigorous protest.
ground manfully, claiming that the allega-
tion of excessive charges was borne out by
the records, but promising to hold back
the report, which was done. l. The
meantime, there was more consulta-
ton by the grand jury, and it was
agreed not to mention Judge Clark by