The Ward County independent. [volume] (Minot, Ward County, N.D.) 1902-1965, 1906-02-15
Judge Goss Removed From Office Commissioners Richardson and Camac End
ing Of One the Most important Cases Ever Held Ward CounRiad
son When Cunered by the Judge Faint and is Carried
From Stand Gould Not Stand the Strain
VACANCIES ARE FILLED BY APPOINTMENT BY REMAINING MEMBERS
the Board Judge Davis and Auditor FMay Corrupt Methods Of the County
Commissioners Brought to Ligh---WA Have a Healthy
Influence on the County in General

The case OF Ward county
against three OF the members OF
the Board OF County Commits
!. ..:;sioners, Leslie r. Carroll OF Don
: neybrook, VIM. Black OF Chilcot,
and s. S. Richardson OF bells,
; after a series Of postponements,
finally came to trial Friday alter
noon before Judge Goss at the
court house.
.. States Attorney McGee assist ted
by Attorney Gray OF kenmare
and Attorney Wineman from
Grand Forks. appeared for the
state. Ii there were any before
the trial who believed thatState S
Attorney McGee would not prose
: cute the case to the best OF his
ability, they musthave admitted
to themselves that they mis-
Judged him. From start to finish
the three attorneys for the state
.. had the case entirely within their
J hands, and seldom failed tomake
point but that they were sue
cessful. Some very knotty prob
lens we're placed before the de-
fendants in such q way that it
was hard for anyone to see how
they could read their titles
clear" The records OF the county
auditor were not in the best OF
shape, but Auditor Fabrick can
hardly be blamed fo: their con-
/ dition. His work was done by
: clerks who seemingly were play
! ing into the hands Of the defend
ants all the way through.
One OF the peculiarities OF the
lease was that the commissioners.
were defended by the former as
sistant states attorney, John II.
j Greene, who was also a law part
.ner Of states's attorney, Mr.. Nc
i Gee. Greene is familiar with all
i, the moves OF the commissioners
during the past year and has
:: been their main counsel in their
shady looking actions.
In the first place, twenty eight
separate charges had been flied
against the commissioners, by the
auditor, Mr.. Fabrick. OF these,
Judge Goss threw out numbers
/. ?, 3, 4, ), 6, Z, y, l3, IA, 1G,
i:l9, 20, p, %, % and -, leav-
ing stand numbers s, 8, 10, II,
IS. II, Is, q, %, 26 and %.
In the first place, the lndepend-
ent wants to impress upoh it's
readers that it was notnecessary
for the state to prove that the
commissioners were guilty OF all
Of these acts, but that ii the
state could prove without a.
question that they were guilty Of
] but one OF the charges, then they
are not fit men to guide hereins
OF the county, and should be re-
moved from office.
j. w. Fabrick, the county au-
ditOr, was the first witness called.
He was asked to produce the
records OF his office and the first
matter taken up by the state
was the letting OF the contract
for the erection OF the east addi-
tion to the county hospital
building. Fabrick turned to his
records and saw that when the
bids for the construction were
opened. ID. A. Dinnie had offered
to do the work for $S,571, Van
Tuyl & Teutsch, $S,9l9, and
Fred McGulpin, pinnie'sforeman,
had submitted a bid for $7.971,
or exactly 5000 less than the bid
submitted by D. A. Dinnie. Din
MES bid was at first accepted,
but after a second thought, the
commissioners rejected the bid
and accepted that OF McGulpin.
At the time this did appear
regular to u grea: many in the
!, county, for McGulpin shortly
after the contract was given him.
stated on the stand that he sub
let the contract to Dinnie. Nc
Gulpin with the exception OF a
NV days at the time the con-.
-act was let, was in the employ
IN Dinnie.as his foreman receiving