The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-03-06
THE WAYNE TOWNSHIP CASE.
Trustee Clark says He Was Threat
ened by Attorney Riley.

The County Commissioners yesterday aft
ernoon resumed the investigation of the
affairs of Marion Clark, trustee of Wayne
township. The examination had not been
concluded at o'clock and the court adj
journed until Monday. Nothing of start
ling character was revealed in the proceed
ings yesterday. One or two persons who
have taught school in Wayne township
were called as witnesses.
Trustee Clark was put on the witness
stand during the afternoon and asked a
number of questions by Attorney Riley
who is conducting the prosecution. The
attorney asked the trustee If he had ever
been accused of reporting a voucher for
$40 more than he had paid the person sign
ing the voucher The trustee replied that
an accusation in a general way had been
made. He believed the accusation had been
in the nature of threat.
Who threatened your asked Henry N
Span, attorney for the trustee.
Mr. Riley threatened me- replied the
trustee referring to the attorney on the
ether side of the case. lie declared that
unless | permitted his brother to teach
school at Ben Davis at the same salary he
had received before he would not only
prosecute me, but would hound me as long
:
brother was formerly employed by Trustee
Clark as principal of the Wayne township
schools.
After this statement had been brought
out by Clark's lawyer Attorney Riley asked
TO be allowed to testify. He was sworn and
look the stand. He stated that within a
short time after the close of the school year
OF lSS6-lS9T he made an investigation of the
reports and vouchers filed by Trustee Clark
with the county commissioners. He then
Went 10 the trustee and informed him as
10 what he had discovered. II told him,
continued the attorney, that he would
nave 10 resign. or the matter would be re-
ported TO the county commissioners"
L don care to. ss-eXamine Mr. Riley"
remarked Attorney Span at the conclusion
or Rlleys statement, because l would have
to touch on matters that 1 learned in conf
uehce IN a consultation with both Mr. RILEY
and Trustee Clark" County ATTORNEY
t 1?IVWn sald that ne thought cross-examina-
uon would be unnecessary.
trustee Clark was given an opportunity
TO explain the discrepancies between the
amount OF the vouchers and what the teach
erS should receive in accordance with their
Contracts. He said he had been q farmer
and not a bookkeeper, and during the year
1879 ne was inexperienced at keeping ac-
counts. lie never had paid Il teacher more
than he thought had been earned, and never
raised salaries except where he believed an
increase was deserved. In the case of Mrs.
Jones, who recel Ied $3.50 more than her
contract called for, the trustee explained
that the ninety cents was for a book she
mad purchased for use in the schools She
had u school that was difficult to conduct
and she had done excellent work the
trustee gave her So extra at the end of the
year. Miss Collins, another teacher who
had received an amount in excess of that
named in her contract, had also undertaken
difficult school. The trustee said he told
her TO teach the year out and he would
make everything satisfactory to her. The
trustee explained the case OF each teacher
who had received additional wages in a
manner satisfactory to his attorney.