Las Vegas times. [volume] (Las Vegas, Nev.) 1905-1906, 1905-10-28

tematic record kept OF the cash re-
ceived or disbursed This practice Is
violation of the provisions made Ia
section 2327. Cuttings Compiled
Laws.
9Th. We find that on transfer Of
this ONCE. its funds, records and re-
ports from Mr.. II. p. Dooley to J. A.
Nesbitt. that no actual checking up
by the latter of Mr.. Dooley's account.
actual cash on hand. balances or
soever In the transfer of the ONCE
from Mr.. j. A. Nesbitt to Mr.. H. J
Goodrich the same failure to check up
the Office business occurred Further
more the amount of actual cash on
hand transferred at that time is at
present unknown to either party. as
there was no receipt given. We sub
NIT that the acts on the part of Mr..
Nesbitt and Mr.. Goodrich and this
failure to check up the accounts of
the outgoing officers have made 1t
POSSIBLE for errors to pass from one
administration To another mus
is some of the cause of the existing
state of affairs and are deserving of
the strongest censure. In this par
ticular we call attention to the fact
that the acts have made it impossible
for this grand jury without lengthy
investigation by themselves and by
an expert auditor to specify the exact
amount of deficit chargeabIe to Mr..
Nesbitt and to Mr.. Goodrich. except
as appears in the true bill found
against the latter. We therefore rec
ommend to the board of county COM
missioners the expert auditing of the
county books at the earliest possible
date, this investigation to cover the
period extending from the end OF Mr..
N. P. Dooley's administration as treas
urer up to the present date and that
the reports be made to the grand jury
next in session or this grand jury II
not adjourned at the time of the con-
clusion of this investigation.
w. H. TURNER while Auditor)--
We find that on two occasions he as
auditor certified to statements of the
condition of funds without checking
them up to ascertain their correct
ness We cite the statements of De
cember list, 1902. and January 1st.
1903. as the evidence in this particu-
lar.
Concerning II. w Turner. auditor.
Henry Lee. auditor; ] A. Nesbitt.
/ Treasurer: II. j. Goodrich. Treasurer;
and j. f. Roeder. Assessor while in
Office
We find that the same clerk has
been employed in the business of two
or more of these Offices at the same
time, which practice is contrary to the
spirit and intention OF Section 121i,
Cuttings compiled laws.
HENRY LEE (While Auditor)- We
/ find that during his term as auditor
he has, with few exceptions. never
checked over the statements of condi'
ton of fund as submitted to him by
the treasurer, although he has duly
Terrified to the same. He has in this
particular certified to several such
statements as being correct in their
condition and totals. when 1t Is fact
they were and are grossly In error. We
| III fu
and negligent in every way and is an
absolute dereliction of the duties of
his Office as auditor.
BENJAMIN SANDERS (While Dis
trict Attorneyl--We find that during
his term of office as district attorney
on his own acknowledgment he made
an unlawful charge of sf5 expenses in
! bill 1926, March 7, 1904, and that the
| same was authorized by the board OF
| county commissioners, who In our
/ opinion are culpable with him, but
| that he being by virtue of his office
their legal adviser, is especially cen
| surable.
n JOl1N IOLCEAh w AAAS <h'SoD~-f
I'VE find that during his term as as
SCISSOR he has not furnished the treas
Eurer with an itemized statement of his
receipts each month. and we recon-
i mend that he do so in the future. Such
a statement would show the separate
amounts collected under each person
lal property tax and poll tax, with the
name of the taxpayer, the number oil
the assessors receipt stubs and the
district or the road district for which
liz was collected. This statement
SHOULD also appear in the assessors =
cash book. We cali attention to the
ifact that the correspondence In the
course Of the business of this office
lhas not during the present incum
tbent's term OF Office been recorded in