Las Vegas times. [volume] (Las Vegas, Nev.) 1905-1906, 1905-09-16

being county tax; neither was the
penalty separated as Il should have
Deen, but was included ms county tax.
Also the superintendent Of Bunker
Vile tax. the per cent commission
which goes into the salary fund was
not apportioned to that fund, but was
apportioned to other funds as a whole.
Warrant No. 1890, favor of James H.
1.iston for $3.50 on general county
fund entered as $3.50 in auditors
ledger and as SIS In treasurer's led
ger and yet both ledgers hare the
same balances. Balances. in general
county fund In both the treasurer and
auditors ledger at end OF February Is
$500 more than the columns show.
This mistake was no doubt made by
the work first being made on paper,
and the amount turned In by the
sheriff in January to which reference
was made in the January notes, was
figured as $1771.sO and In copying
the same in the ledger. was copied as
s1.171.S0. showing that the column
was not added up either by the treas
urer or auditor after being entered in
| the ledger
There appears a transfer OF $3.50
from the general fund to the INDECENT
fund, for which | find no order by the
hoard Of commissioners
! March 1905.-The taxes were not
apportioned properly.
| April 1905.--The taxes collected
were not apportioned properly and
$94S short of what receipts called
for. Assessors report does not dess
ignate in which road district poll taxes
fwErE collected. 30 have TO Jump to
the conclusion that the personal prop
erty tax is all county and the ledger
lshows that the poll tax WAS appor-
toned to Delamar road number 5. so
have apportiohed the~same way.
Entries of warrants paid or drawn
against INDECENT fund in April APP
pears In auditors ledger as $1.S5; $50;
$3.50 and s5: and in the treasurer's
ledger as s1.S5; SASS: IS and $70.75;
the three was drawn against the gen.
eral county fund, notwithstanding
the great difference in the warrants
entered against the, same fund in both
Iledgers. by unknown system. they
both have the same balance.
/ Nothing in the assessors report to
show what district poll taxes and per
sonal property taxes were collected,
so have taken the apportionment as
appears in the ledger of auditor and
treasurer. Taxes were not appor-
tioned properly in that amounts paid
in on Bunkeryille; tax was appor-
toned as general county penalty and
advertising not right in the amounts
apportioned. Apportionment of $500
to salary fund on general license ap-
portioned wrong.
| Apportionment of money received
for license on slot machines appor-
toned wrong, as included in gen,
leral.
June, 1906 Entries of warrants
No. 1430 for $22.55 and No. 1432 for
1861. drawn against The state fund.
Twas charged up against the contin-
lgent fund. and also against the state
fund.
July. 1905.-Under bin No. 610 al
lowed July 10th for sl.s62. for ex-
lpenses for witnesses fees, etc. In the
Hancock murder case. s125 had been
lcredited in May salary fund. being
marked order and 800 In June in
warrant No 1923 In favor OF Jake
johnson as money advanced Judge
Marioneaux
/ | call you special attention to the
report submitted to your honorable
body each month showing the condi-
Etion of the several funds, | find that
while the amounts represented In the
report as being In the several funds
are correct. the total amount carried
Iout in the school fund Is $1,000 short
lof what 1t should be. This occurs In
Eevery report that have examined
from September /, 1904. to May l,
|ls05. with the exception OF the report
flor the first OF December. which did
mot find have not gone back OF the
FIRST OF September. 1904. a. have not
had the time yet These reports have
been filed With your honorable body
lby the auditor. In one or two In
stanoes II exceeds $1,000 By few dol
liars.
find that while the country treas
Iurer had all funds on deposit with the
National Bank Of the Repubffc. Salt
Lake. Utah, no account was ever KEPT
with the bank; the statement submit
Ifad nv the hank every month haIfzr. ssn