The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-03-12
COURT HOLDS FOR SMITH
ALLOWANCES MADE TO COUNTY
AUDITOR WE'RE LEGAL.
Judge Carter Decides that County
Commissioners Had Every Right to
Grant Additional Pay.

Judge Vinson Carter, in Superior Court,
Room 3. yesterday effectually set at rest
the contention of certain Democratic tax
payers of Marion county that fees have
been Illegally collected by County Auditor
Harry B. Smith in a decision against the
Board of County Commissioners in its suit
for the recovery of s11,74SO9. alleged to
have been unlawfully received by Smith.
The suit was filed some time ago at the
instigation of Romus f. Stuart, of this
city, who made formal demand on the
County Commissioners to proceed for the
recovery of the money under the statutory
provision which compels the demand to be
first made on the commissioners. The law
provides that should the commissioners
taxpayer may do and receive a por-
tion of the funds collected as his commits
sion for the interest taken.
The several items allowed by the commits
sioners to the auditor which were contested
are follows:
Making fourteen volumes of new record
of tax sales including a general index and
copy of tax sales for 1899, for the county
treasurer. sl,2s5.Ol.
Making an index of tax sales and rec
ords of school fund loans. $40.
Making register of the bonds of the coun-
ty, Sis.
Placing street numbers and addresses of
| taxpayers on the tax duplicate for the
| years 1899, 1900 and 1901 $3.50 a year, $1.05O.
Twenty days service on the Board of Re
view for 1901 and for 1902. at s. day. $l2o
Changing the election precincts In 1900,
| $1.190.5c.
For money paid out to others in making
precincts for election in 1902, $l,126.25.
| Making new copies of maps and plats
and additional maps and plats of lots and
lands in Marion county, paid at various
dates. from Oct. g. 1900. to July 20. 1902.
For postage stamps. telephone, ETC., for
1899. s2O316
Cash paid for railroad fares of commits
| Auditor Smith claimed that he was en-
| titled to those which charged for the MAX
| ing of plats and that he complied with the
| law which requires written contracts with
| the County Commissioners. Mr.. Smith, in
! his explanation to the County Commission
| ers before the suit was filed. furnished sat
| isfactory authorities and references in de-
| cisions of the Indiana Supreme Court show
| ing that none Of the money received was
wrongfully charged. The commissioners
| agreed with him and County Attorney
/ Hugg said he thought that all of them
| were authorized in the law. On Mr.. Hugg 8
| advice the suit was entered in order that
and Mr.. Hugg wanted the matter set at
/ rest, and Auditor Smith thought that suit
| was unavoidable in his vindication of the
| charges. Mr.. Smith stated that he felt
| ready at any time to contest the case in
| the courts and that he felt that for the
| benefit of other county officers as well as
| his successors in office that an interpreta-
| ton of the fee and salary law was neces-
| sary In the specific instances cited.
| In Judge Carriers decision he refers to
the case OF Seller VS. the State, recently
galizes the allowances for pay of county
| auditors for services on county boards of
,e HE also tS refers to ,Sa
| lowances for postage and car fare.
| In interpreting the statute which pro-
| vides that no allowances shall be made any
| county auditor unless in cases of ''indis-
| pensaDle public necessity" and allowances
| to be entered of record a part of the
| boards order making the allowances Judge
| Carter held that the commissioners were
| right in making the allowances to Smith.