The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1906-05-15

50, 800 was not approved by any member
Claim 5I,lS9. Western Union Telegraph
company, is for 81, but the warrant drawn
in payment therefor is s.
a street department payroll aggregat-
ing $713.O4 is not verified.
Another payroll of S71s.O4 is not veri-
Claim 81, 2ss is in favor of ]. E. Bagley
and is for 1902. 70. and was to pay the costs
tenn. An iteTnized cost bill was undoubt-
edly served upon the city attorney and
the same should have en- attached to
the voucher
Claim 5l549 is in favor of George A
Lowe company for 1913. but the warrant
Claim 81. 66S American Bankers Daily
Bond News, $96- The claim bears no YER
ificatiOn, 10 certificatiOn and was not APP
Claim 1888 Calvert & Leek. $45. 80. was
Claims 5lSss 70 51,g74, p. ]. Moran, pay
ments upon contract for doing certain
public work, are not verified, certified or
Claim 52s75, J P. o'Nein, 81, 62s- 80, no
Claims 52,SS2, SS3 and SS4, J. <. Halver-
son. city treasurer. There is absolutely
no notation upon the face of the claims
at all. The endorsement of each says
Claim 5s279, A. 7. Hestmark. $50. is
Claims 53.2s1 TO So 80. inclusive. bear no
notation at all to whether or not they
were allowed and ordered paid by the
council. and they were not approved by
Claim 535O7. American Arithermometer
company, 1919, bears no notification or
warrants IS. 4ss to $500. covering fifteen
payments to j P. O'NeiH and P. ]. Moran,
bear no notation as 10 whether or not
. they were ever presented to. considered
BY or allowed and ordered paid by the
city council, and were not approved by
the mayor.
Cashed, All Right.
/ Claim 1898 is in favor of William Glas-
mann. $50. being salary. The warrant is
not in the auditors office and there is
CAIN "a 49, - Bse &c So litigation
expenses is not itemized verified, ap-
proved and no receipt for any OF the items
claim 5000 4. B. Patton. $3.50. was
never audited by the city auditor The
claim states it is for cash expended for
chair. There is no receipt for the cash
SO expended. the claim bears no approval
by the mayor, and nothing to show that
claim $40. 4 B. Patton, $55 The
claim is verified by A. 3. Patton, ap
A B Patton but bears no notation as TO
whether or not IL was allowed and or
dered paid by the council. It was not ap-
proved by the mayor and there is no re-
ceipt- attached showing the payment of
the $50 in the first instance.
Claim 81, 81. W. J. CritchlOW, postage,
/ s.. has no receipt attached. was not au-
dited. was not verified. was not certified
and has not been approved,
! Claim "a 434 - Farrar, $500 is not YER
flied certified or approved; no record as
70 its allowance by the council 1t was
! for one horse for the fire department, but
no bill of sale or any particulars or de-
/ scription concerning the horse are at
tached to the claim.
/ Claim a. $40. Sanitary, Street Cleaning
/ & Sweeping company. 1898. There is alb
soluteIy nothing on the face Of the claim
/ except the name of the claimant and the
amount.
Claim 54.37s Art Metal Construction
thereto was not passed upon by the city
[ auditor.
Claim 55,1s4. A Power. s14.31. for freight
/ charges on disinfectants Claim was not
audited. certified, verified or approved,
and the freight expense bill is not at
tached to the voucher
Claim 55,915, Meta Stair, $3.50, fifteen
days work in city recorders office. Claim
was not audited, approved, verified or
certified.
Claim 55e24, Fred c. Naisbitt sf51. 20.
Nothing else appears upon the face OF
the voucher
Claim 55.4O7, Charles r. Critchlow. $50.
for assisting recorder and auditor during
1905. bears no notation as to whether or
not il ever allowed and ordered paid
by the city council, and was not approved
by the mayor.
The fire department payroll for Sep
TENDER So 1905, was not verified, certi-
fled. audited or approved. and the same
applies to the payroll for the same de-
partment for June 90, 1905.