The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1898-02-27
THOSE lNSOLvEMT COSTS.
COUNTY COMMISSIONER AND So
LICITOR GENERALS BILL.

Chairman DaIe's PositIon-ThO
1t Should BE Paid IL the County
Owed II at This Time, But He Did
Not Consider II Was "a Mntured
CInim-InSOIVent Costs of Other
Court Officers Paid In the Fall
New LAW Putting Expenses of the
City Court on the County as ID Re
Iates TO the Solicitor General.
lament the bills Of Solicitor General W.
w. Osborne for insolyent COSTS which
have been presented to the County Com
missioncrs, both for the Superior and the
City Court, there has been some little dis
cussion, particularly on account of the
way in which the matter came up before
the special meeting Of the commissioners
the other day.
The meeting, It is stated, was called for
the special purpose of appointing a COM
missioner to sign deeds, and when this
business had been transacted Commits
sioner II. N. West brought up the matter
as to why Solicitor General Osborne's bill
for insolyent costs for 1893 had not been
audited and paid. Mr.. Kehoe then made
some inquiries with regard to the legal
status of the bill.
Chairman Dale simply expressed him
self TO the effect that II the bill was Just
claim against the county, and due by the
county at this time II should be paid; but
as it was for the year 1893, and the budget
for the year had not yet been made up, he
did not think it was yet matured claim
against the county.
1t is stated that heretofore all annual
payments under the direction Of the coun-
ty attorney, are payable when taxes have
been assessed and collected 10 meet such
payments, and under this ruling the clerk
of the Superior Court and the sheriff are
paid for their insolyent costs in the fan Of
the year Last year the solicitor general
presented his bill IN February and in the
absence of the county attorney, the act
ing county attorney, to whom the bill was
referred decided that there was no special
reason why the bill should not be paid,
ana the board thereupon passed the bill
for payment
1t is stated however, that In 1896, Mr..
w w. Fraser, who was then solicitor gem
eral, presented his bill for $500 on account
Of insolvent costs In July, and under the
ruling Of the county attorney, as the taxes
for 1896 had not then been collected, and
there were no funds to meet the payment,
compromise he accepted a ninety-day note
from the county payable the following No
vember.
The whole matter appears to be some
what mixed up, though Mr.. Saussy. the
county attorney, says he does not see any
objection now to the payment of the ac-
count due by the county The law rela-
tive to the payment of $500 on insolvent
costs IN the city court. as changed at the
last session of the legislature. putting the
burden on the county instead OF the city,
deals with the other side OF the matter.
The foregoing statement refers to the So
llcitor generals claim against the county
for services in the Superior Court. That
portion of the new law which refers to
the City Court side of the question reads
as follows:
"All other expenses Of said court shall
hereafter be paid by the county of Chat
ham; but this act shall not go into effect
until April !, 1888; provided that nothing