The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-11-05

Official figures recently published by the
Journal prove beyond any doubt that dur
ing the period that Mr. E. NJ. johnson was
acting as deputy for Auditor Taggart the
latter drew out of the country treasury at
least $4,000. From Nov. 3, 1894, to Oct. 10.
1885, eleven months and seven days, he drew
$39, 1884, and from Nov. 3, 1891, to Oct Il,
1895, three years, eleven months and seven
days, he drew $143. 5O3.93. At this rate his
receipts during eight years would consider
ably exceed $25O,OOO. Every dollar of this
passed through the hands of Mr.. E. NJ. John
son. who furnished the bookkeeping brains
of the auditors Office and made out the
claims and charges on which the allowances
were made. A considerable portion of them
was for salary at the rate of S1S,924 year,
to which the auditor was entitled, but much
the largest part was for services rendered
as auditor which should have been covered
by his salary and for which he was not en-
titled to extra pay. All these charges,
claims and bills were made out by Mr..
Johnson and allowed by Democratic Board
of County Commissioners. OF the allow
ances thus worked through the books show
that for $3O569.S4 there are no bills on file
and nothing to show the character of the
services rendered, if any, or the nature of
the claim. As the bills filed cover every
possible kind of service for which an
auditor could claim pay, under even wide
open construction of the law. it is fair to
assume that the allowances for which no
bills are on file were unauthorized and
illegal. If that is the case, and to the full
extent that it is the case, suit will lie
against Mr.. Taggart for the recovery of
the amount thus illegally allowed. The Su-
preme Court has so decided. In Board of
Commissioners of Huntington County vs.
Heaston, IA Ind, p. 5SS, the court held that
IAN action will lie in favor Of a county
against county auditor to recover money
ordered paid to and received by him upon
an unlawful claim and that "A board of
county commissioners cannot bind the
county by allowing and ordering to be paid
an unlawful claim" The suit came up
from the Huntington Circuit Court and was
against an ex-auditor of that county to
compel him to refund fees and charges
illegally allowed by the commissioners. In
stating the case the court said:
The complaint alleges that the appellee,
Heaston, was elected and served as auditor
of Huntington county from the lSt day OF
November, 1887, to Nov. l, 1891; that he was
paid and received for said term such
officer all salary and compensation allowed
by law; that during his term, notwith-
standing the fact that he had been paid and
received from the county all of his salary
and compensation allowed him by law, ne.
under the color of said office, Illegally taxed
up fees, and in violation of law demanded,
eXtorted and received payment of the same,
in his official capacity, from the county;
the said fees not being allowable under the
statutes of the State. Here follows an
itemized list of fees so taxed and received
by appellee from the county, amounting in
the aggregate to $7,221.90, for which judg-
ment is demanded.
The Supreme Court overruled a decision
of the lower court holding that the action
of the commissioners was final and re-
manded the case for further proceedings in
accordance with this opinion" Later the
court overruled a petition for rehearing.
The decision is broad enough to cover every
case of an unauthorized allowance to an
auditor by county commissioners. OF the
claims made out by Mr.. Johnson and al
lowed to Mr.. Taggart fully $4,000 were
plainly unauthorized. Under the decision of
the Supreme Court the county can recover
the amount of these illegal allowances. but
in equity the Taggart ring should refund it
without suit.