The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1903-10-14

transaction now six years old, what ls
the correct version.
Mr.. Harris did hold the County's
note for So, 900 for money borrowed, on
the End day of July, 1896. Mr.. Blake
got the money, for be is charged with
it in the next succeeding settlement.
The interest on this note was paid by
County checks as stated by Mr.. Will
son until the 1st day of January, 1897.
Nowhere did Mr.. Wilson or myself
find that Mr.. Blake ever received cred
it for paying the $4,000 note, although
it has been paid or, as shall prove,
was merged into new note.
On the list day of January. 1897, Mr..
Harris presented his note for $4,000 for
payment, and along with it 81, 1885,
worth of certificates of indebtedness,
and demanded payment. The C0un-
ty Supervisor informed him that he
could not pay the note and claims, but
that he would give him new note
covering the whole, and Mr.. Harris
could surrender the certificates and
smaller notes. Mr.. Harris complied
and accepted the County's note for
S4.1sS.54, dated lst day of January,
1897.
To support this contention, I find
open and apparently unpaid on book
of past indebtedness covering this very
period, claims sufficient to have made
up the differences between the faces of
the first and second notes. THESE
claims were turned over by Mr.. Har-
ris, and as the Supervisor did not issue
check in payment of them, he could
not, as was his rule when claims were
paid, mark them paid by check num-
ber--at that time.
1t would appear from the records
that these claims are debt against the
County today az a matter Of fact,
Mr.. Blake has paid them, and if he is
not allowed credit in the note in ques-
ton, he should be allowed direct
credit in the next annual settlement.
He certainly has received no credit for
them, unless in the note, as tated.
Attached hereto is certificate from
Mr.. John A. Harris stating that be
never loaned the County any money
directly or indirectly, except the S3, 900
note made in 1896, and stating further
that to the best of his recollection, the
4,1SS.54 note originated as 1 have
stated herein.
On examination of Mr.. Harris ac-
count at the Farmers and National
Banks, for the period during which
the note for 81, 1854 was given, aud
subsequently, L do not find that he
drew any check approximating 81, 1885,
81 or 81 1854, the difference between
the values Of the first and second
notes. He did not draw any check for
more than a few hundred dollars, at
or about that time. Mr.. Blake's check
books shows that no such amounts
were deposited therein at that time.
Now / lay this down as an incon-
trovertible fact that if Treasurer Blake
got in cash only $4,000 from Mr..
Harris, with which amount be is pro-
perly charged, he could not by any
known process of reasoning be charged
by the County with receiving $4, 1885,
81. 1t is due Mr.. Wilson to state that
at the time he investigated the Trea-
surer's accounts, he did not have the
past Indebtedness book herein referred
to nor did we know of its existence,
hence he did not know of the ST. 200 or
$l,500 worth of past Indebtedness
claims carried from year to year and
transferred in 1896 to the P. I. Book.
I will 60 further and state that Mr..
Wilson examined the Supervisors
account book in the effort to find open
claims, for which the treasurer bad
not taken credit, with a view to ac-
counting for the difference between
the first and second notes, but his in
vestigation did not extend far enough
back to embrace the claims brought
ferred to the Past Indebtness book and
hence he found an amount insufficient
to make the difference between the
first Harris note and the second one.
I present herewith some of the claims
belonging to the Past Indebtedness
Account unrecipted as. above stated,
and apparently still due. 1t is possi-
BILE that the Supervisor may have
failed occasionally, to take the receipt
of person receiving check in pay
ment of his account, and that he
might occasionally fail to mark the
account on his claim book paid by
check No. -, but that he would
neglect these precautions, ordinarily
abb red to, with the great number of
claims transcribed to the Past In
debtedness book is next to impossible
except as explained in the making of
the second note. When the claims
were turned over to him by Mr.. Harris
and the new note given no check was
issued, hence the claims were not
credited as paid by check. Mr.. Harris
did not at the time receipt the claims
because he did not at that time actual
ly receive payment, but accepted a
note in leu thereof. When the note
was eventually paid the Supervisor
overlooked the fact that certain past
Indebtedness claims entered into it
and were settled by payment of the
note, and failed to recur to the
accounts and mark them paid in note,
check No. IA.
These accounts then are apparently
still due, the Treasurer has received
no credit for them in any of the an
nual settlements, and yet they were
paid by the Treasurer and are in the
hands of the Supervisor. Shall he get
credit for them, or has he gotten credit
for them in paying the second Harris
note?
The Sll7.14 which in Mr.. Wilson's
report is part of the $957.51 claimed
as Excess credit inter est on borrowed
money" is correct charge against
the Treasurer.
This double credit was occasioned
by the Treasurer getting q County
claim for the amount, being interest
on q note then outstanding, and sub
sequently getting credit in the annual
settlement for like amount. AS
Auditor gave him the second credit
not knowing that he had received Il