The Ward County independent., 1905-12-27


ing as u majority of said board negli-
gently appointed one William Murray to
act as inspector of hospital building,
knowing that said William Murray was
in tho employ of the Great Northern
Railway company as foreman in its re.
pair chops at Minot and that his time
was taken up with bis said employment,
and that thereafter said defendants un-
lawfully and corruptly allowed said
Murray the sum of 10000 for his SER
vices as such inspector.
XVII. Your informant gives this
court to understand and be Informed
that heretofore to wit, at the July, A.
d. 1905 meeting of said board of county
commissioners, the said defendants act
ing as majority of said board unlaw-
fully and corruptly approved and al
lowed claim of the Minot Optic against
said county of Ward in the sun of
1899 81 for 200 court calendars. That
said bill of fhe Minot Optic for said
court calendars was excessive and ex-
orbitant, and that said defendants were
we'll aware thereof. That thereafter
they recinded their action and allowed
said bill for said calendars at the sum of
$3.50 90, whereas in fact and in truth
the real value of said calendars was not
more than the sum of $500, all of
which said defendants we'll knew.
XVIII. Your informant gives this
court to understand and be informed
that heretofore to wit, on the 18th dsy
of July, A. d. 1905, the said defendants
acting as members of the board of
equalization of said county Of Ward, ar
bltrarily raised the value of ali the real
s,, ~
OF Minot in said county fifty per cent,
July, A. d 1905, said defendants acting
ton unIawfully and corruptly reduced
siding in said city of Minot on real es-
tate owned by said c. H. Parker 10 the
city of Minot from the su2 of S27, $50
to the sum of 800.
XIX. Your Informant gives this
court to understand and be informed
that heretofore to-wit, the board Of
county commissioners of said county OF
Ward in the month Of July, 4. d. 1904
made a levy for bridge purposes in the
sua. of $4,000 and for road purposes in
the sum Of $1,000, making d total levy
in the sum of SIT 200 for road and bridge
purposes, and that not witbstanding the
fact that these defendants as members
of SAID board were we'll aware OF the
amount of said levy. they caused to be
drawn upon said fund for road and
bridge purposes from the first day OF
December, A. D, 1901 to the first day of
December, A. D.. 1905 the sum of
500, ,17l.3S.
Xxx. Your informant gives this court
u 4 4 l. Il
hereto fore to-wit, in the month OF July,
a, D. 1905 SAID defendants acting as a
majority of said board OF county com
missloners of said county of Ward made
levy for bridge purposes in the sum of
$1,000, aud notwithstanding such fac.
said defendants unawfuly let contracts
for bridge purposes in the sum OF
$780, ,4l6.
XXI. Your informant gives this
court to unders 'and and be informed
that heretofore to-wt, at the January,
A. D. 1905 meeting o. said board OF
county commissioners, said defendants
acting as a majority OF said board un-
lawfully allowed to one Louis \. Larson
the sum Of s2l2.O0 for wolf bounty,
great many Of the bills for said wolf
bounty not being verified as required by
law and not being signed by the parties
from whom said Larson received said
claims and the said voucher not being
verified as required by law.
XXI. Your informant gives this
court to understand and be informed
that heretofore to-wit, during the sum-
mer of 1905 said defendants acting as
majority of said board of county COM
missioners advertised for bids for the
building of the DeLacs bridge. and that
pursuant to said advertisement the fol-
lowing bids were received: The Mime
apolis Bridge and Iron Company to do
all the work and furnish all the material
of every description requisite and neces-
sary to complete in a workmaplike man.
uer and ready for travel for the sum Of
sl9,75O, approaches and specifications
to conform with those on file. The
Northwestern Bridge Co. of Moorehead,
Minnesota, bid for plan No. /, SlS,5O0
and plan No. ?, $4,000, and on motion
of defendant Richardson seconded by
defendant Carroll the bid of the North
western Bridge Company for plan No. l,
at Sl8,5O0 was accepted. Your infor-
| mant alleges the fact to be that the con-
tract between the Northwestern Bridge
| Company of Moorebead, Mimi, and the
county of Ward, North Dakota, does
not comply with said advertisement for
bids IN this: that in said contract the
county of Ward is to furnish piling for
said bridge and that the material was
to be transported ever the 500 line rail-
way, free Of charge to said Northwestern
Bridge Company of Moorehead, Mimi,
and that if said Northwestern Bridge
Company should have to pay freight on
said material that the county of Ward
was to reimburse them for the full
amount of such freight, which changes
from the advertisement viii impose up
GU the people of the county of Ward as
the cost of said bridge the additional
sum of $1,000, being $1,000 for piling
and at least $1,000 for freight on mater
ial; and your informant alleges the fact
to be that these defendants in their
official capacity as majority OF the
board OF county commissioners OF said
county of Ward unlawfully and corrupt.
ly awarded said contract to said North.
western Bridge Company. Your infor-
mant further alleges the fact to be that
said defendants had no authority to
award a contract for the construction of
bridge, for the reason that the cost of
said bridge was greatly in excess OF the
levy for bridge purposes for the year