Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1901-01-03
Poor Board Audit Audited.

T. NJ. Baker, Esq, who was appointed
auditor by the Court on the appeal of
j. Harvey Miller and S. NJ. Mcclure,
overseers of Butler Borough, from the
last borough auditors report and settle
ment, has filed his report. The over
seers made ten exceptions to the borough
auditors report. which charged the
overseers with S995S, gave them credits
of 50 71S, and found a balance against
them and due from them to the borough
of 81 $50. of which last sum, 81, ,410, was
made up of a surcharge on the over
seers, this being the amount of duplicate
warrants with which the overseers had
redeemed original warrants. The bOr-
ough auditors surcharged these dupli-
Gates and the overseers excepted to this.
Auditor Baker sustains this exception,
takes off the surcharge and cancels the
duplicate warrants.
The overseers also excepted to the re
fusal of the auditors to allow a warrant
for 5000 drawn to J. Harvey Miller for
for salary in 1898.
This exception was overruled and the
borough auditors sustained in refusing
the warrant because the auditors report
for that year fails TO show any balance
coming to Mr.. Miller.
Four small warrants. amounting to
$42, which the auditors had refused,
were allowed by Mr.. Baker.
The borough auditors were sustained
in refusing to allow Mr.. Miller a , per
cent commission amounting to about
$500, claimed as treasurer of the poor
board. because such an Office does not
exist in law.
Mr. Baker also refused to consider
warrants amounting TO S4o1, which MIR.
Miller claimed he presented before the
borough auditors, who refused TO audit
them. The auditors testified that these
warrants had not been presented. These
Warrants will come before the next
borough audit.
The auditors were sustained in charg-
ing the overst ers with $3.50 received
from Bedford county on the d. Lindsey
case. Half this amount had been re-
tanned as an attorney fee. They We're
also suetained in charging the overseers
with S1167 which was received from
Parker City on the Perry case and which
the Cverseers claimed they had not re-
ceived They were overruled III sur
charging J. Harvey Miller and S. NJ.
Mcclure Jointly, the latter not being an
overseeI at the time the duplicates were
issued.
The account is then restated, charg-
ing Mr.. Miller with 50, $50, and allowing
him $40, 104 credits, making balance
of 3l39 due him.
The hearing began October II and
closed November Is. There are AZ pages
in the report and 30 pages of testimony,
and the prothonotary' charge for re
cording is S25.
The auditor charges a fee of $3.50, and
the total costs, S3l 1, are put on the poor
district.
Auditor Baker says the borough audit
ors were correct. in good ook-keeping,
in surcharging Mr.. Miller with Sl,4lO,
but the surcharge is lifted and the du-
plicate warrants cancelled because an
overseer has no legal right 10 borrow
money on the districts credit and this
makes the duplicate warrants, when at
tached to indoTsed notes, (the only way
the banks take them) debts due to the
banks by those who signed the notes,
j. e., the payee of the duplicate and Mr..
Miller
The report states: This defense to
the surcharge, as the Auditor views 1t,
is only technical Since no money was
paid for the original warrants repre-
sented by these duplicates, upon settle
ment of the accounts of j. Harvey Mil
Ter and credits allowed for an original
warrants, there should be in the treas
ury in fact an equivalent amount of
money unexpended, even though the
balance to that extent should not be
found against him. True Mr.. Miller
has admitted that he has paid the dupli-
cate warrants. and that out of the funds
received since the audit, but in case of
any conflict arising, the cancellation of
these duplicates disposes of them so that
the district may not pay it's Indebtedness
twice and if payments have been made
out of the receipts of the current year
the auditors of 1901 must settle and adj
just the same