The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1899-10-11

county officials. and committee to examine
sne dockets and Official acts of the magistrates
of the county.
We report thas we nave examined the
bonds of the various county officials, and
End them satisfactory, some being with guar
anteed companies, the solyency Of which we
s,e assured.
The personal bonds are sigoed By persoos
snancialiy responsible in every instance for
{ more than Iheir proportions Of said bonds.
& We have examined carefully the books Of the
county off sisIs and 6nd them correct, With
she exception of the County Superintendent
Of Education, 10 which We find sn apparent
shortage seemingly dating back three admin
( istratiors
The credits to the various school districts
are 10 excess of the amounts reported to the
State Superintendent of Education. The
books do not balance and we recommend that
a competent expert be appointed to examine
suto them and place the responsibility where
at belongs, as the present incumben. is OBJ
g7iously placed at d.ssdyantage. II seems
SO be The practice of the Counas Superip,en-
dent of Education formerly called County
,esongirg to one district to pay claims Ia an
other district.
s We wish TO earnestly protest against this
isDjass and Illegal custom. Sore districts
{ are wisely and jadicionsly managed, the funds
iacreased in come instances by q special tax
levied upon themselves for the improvement
of thar schools and heightened terms; now
they wish 10 use their surplus and decrease
aaxadon, and 6ni their funds are not avails
able, being loaned to other school districts.
-, ror,n9u <haf or no
lands of any school district are exhausted
a be schools be closed.
s In many cases the schools could be COM
& he found for some districts AS az
evidence of their unbusiness-lke method
& hundreds of dollars were spent for charts.
globes and fixtures when these districts had
no money of their own even to pay their
teachers
I We ind that ore or more of the msgis-
srates have failed TO bind over prosecuting
Witnesses io3 certain cases brought before us
under indi ietmert, thus resarding progress of
the conr..
ssa We Investigated q charge made against
. Magistrate Thos. B. Rhame for failure TO
enter npon his docket an account for certain
costs collected By him in criminal business.
We only found that in single case ne bad
required 8 defendant to ply one dollar, not
entered upon his docket, being the cost Of
hiring 8 horse and buggy by his constable
IN seeking TO arrest the defendant who had
s Tor SOM days eevaded arrest We found that
sill other costs and fnes were properly entered
upon his docket and tnroeG over by him TO
a.she County Treasurer His docket was
neatly kept, and while il may have been
improper for the Magistrate to require the
defendant 10 pay this one dollar as expenses
necessarily iacurred ID making the arrest, yet
Fe are satisfied that it was not an Intentional
violation of the Law We commend him for
Eshis full and frank statement concerning the
matter and for the manner in whica his
docket has been kept.
The Investigation ny the committee of the
grand inry appointed for that purpose result
ed IN psoof by witnesses that fronn twenty
$50 cases or arrests under criminal warrants
issued by G.. Il. Barrett, Magistrate, the
sum OF seveoty-two aud 9G-l00 dollars had
been collected by him as COSTS and hnes. That
the majority of these cases were rot entered
upon bis docket and that OF those that we're
upon bis docket. the docket shows that only
ninety ceoss was paid oy each defendant ss
costs. Tbat the total Of such OF these cases
IS are upon the docket shows that only seven
snd 2o-io0 dollars was entered and turned
ever TO the Treasurer, leaving difference OF
sixty-fve aud f0-loo dollars st:ll In bis hands.
This committee deeping ii its duty sent TO
the Governor of the State all testimony thus
taken, together with complete copy of his
docket, and comparative statement showing
.he smoun, of costs aud foes as summed up
fson the testimony on the ooe tand and the
costs aud 6nes as shown By his docket as to
such of these cases as were docketed on the
other hand, showing the difference ss above
stated, that he might take such action as be
deemed proper. Subsequently the Governor
returned al. the papers TO the foreman with
.et,ershowiog that he had referred the matter
30 tbs legislative delegation of the county,
Who had declined 70 take action, ~ss 1t had
20 power to summon witnesses before 1t; but
the Governor further stated that "whsn the
Grand Jury meets they Gao secure the attend
ance Of witnesses, and if they 80 recommend
the mag,steste can be removed and such other
action taken IS will be warranted oy the
facts" Accordingly number of witnesses
haYe besn examined before the entire Grand
Jury at the present term of court, and as
result, We respectfully present, that g. d.
Barrett, Magistrate, has been guilty of Grim.
loal malfea5auce. ~ once uc6er sectons go
and 327 of the Criminal Statutes, in that:
/. That oD the l7th day of April, 1890,
Chsrley Hill, Kage Walters and Johnny har-
din having oeen arrested under criminal
warrant issued by G. NJ. Barrett, Magistrate,
charged with assault and battery and az
raigued before said magistrate at his office
10 Bishopville, 10 said county, did pay over
to said Magistrate as criminal costs, the sum
of Eve dollars and forty cents. upon COM
promise and settlement of the case, and that
OF this SUI, only three dollars and sixty
cents was entered upon the said Magistrates
docke, aud accounted forsacd paid over OF
hin TO :he County Treasurer. The balance,
one dollar and eighty cents. was nnlswfully
appropriated bv said Magistrate 10 his own
nse, 10 violation OF Sections 325 and 327 Of
the Criminal Statutes That David Z. Da-
rant, Charley Hill, Johuny Hardin, Il. l.
Scarborough apd John S Bradford are Wit
nesses to prove the sane.
2. That on the l7th day of April. 1899
ooe William Lane, being under arrest aud
held before said Magistrate uuder criminal
warrars for violation Of contract as farm