The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-01-26
SUPERVISOR IN TROUBLE.
NJ. Il. GARNER, OF BUCKLEY, AC-
CUsED OF IRREGULARITIES.
Amdavlts of Men From Enumciaw
Say That Bills Have Been Turned
in to the County for Work Which
Was Not Done-An investigation.

According to afhdavits received yester-
day afternoon by County Auditor Evenson,
there Is trouble ahead for Supervisor NJ. r.
Garner of road district No. n. He is
practically accused of forgery and OF turn
ing in vouchers for work which was never
done.
From rumors which reached the county
commissioners office recently, 1t was
feared that things were not going exactly
according to law in Supervisor Gamers
district To all appearances, however. the
records as received from Garner were cor
rect, and there was no desire to take snap
judgment on him. AS a precautionary
measure one Of his bills was held up, pend
ing further investigation.
BY remarkable coincidence Auditor
Evenson received a letter from Garner yes
terday afternoon asking where his war
rant was, and at the same time q bunch
of affdavits arrived from Enumclaw ex-
planning the charges against him. Mr..
Evenson refused to discuss the matter,
saying he was at a loss to understand how
the story has leaked out so soon after the
receipt of the affidavits. He admitted
that the case had not yet been turned
over to Prosecuting Attorney McElroy,
and would not express an opinion as to
what course would be taken by the county
commissioners.
A. Gardner, George Dennison, Samuel
Owens and Norman Forler are the ones
transactions with Supervisor Garner. In
the beginning they all make affidavits that
they worked in road district NO. " during
1893 under the direction OF Garner, and
assert that they received payment direct
from him, but deny that they ever assign
ed vouchers for work done over to Garner.
In a separate affidavit Gardner swears
that he worked eight days in the district,
one and one-half days of which work was
put in on bridges. The bill for all of this
time, except one and one-half days. was
paid, Gardner says, through the regular
system Of vouchers, but that Garner paid
him in cash for one and one-half days
work. Continuing, Gardner alleges but
for the one and one-half days work did
not assign my voucher to Garner, although
tors office that the time was assigned to
Garner, and said voucher reads that two
ana one-half days work was performed,
instead Of one and one-half days, as was
actually worked"
Samuel Owens, of Enumclaw says in his
affidavit that he worked twelve and one
half days, and was paid by Garner in cash
for one day. He claims he did not assign
his claim to Garner, yet the records show
that he did, and also show that the time
was two and one-half days, instead of one
day.
1t is probable that the disclosures of al
legged Irregularities will cause the county
commissioners to take some action on the
system of assigned claims AS it is now,
man working on road MAY assign his
the printed form and takes the trouble
to see that 1t is filled in properly, every
thing is all right, but IL he simply signs his
name and leaves it for the supervisor to
fill In, there is an opportunity for raising
the time. 1t appears from the affidavits
ment at all, yet the records show purported
assignments.