The Brattleboro reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1907-1912, 1907-11-29
BRArrLHBoRo, FRIDAY, NOV. 20, 1907
rAcrs ABOUT THE HOWARD CASE

II
There is "a bit of haziness about the
reports in the state press generally con
corning the real outcome of the recent
trial Of the suit of the state of Yer
mont against George T. Howard IL
may be of interest to look back at tine
record and find out just what was tried
and Just what was determined. The
legislative committee which inves'i'
gated the matter found that there were
SIS DAYS for which Mr.. Howard, as rail
road commissioner, had charged for ser
vice at sc per day, when his only ser
vices we're to start from his home III
Craftsbury in the afternoon and stay
over night in Hardwick or Burlington
or some other station, and on nearly
all these occasions he could have made
the same connections and arrange
ments by starting from home the next
morning, and that the charges were
unnecessary and unlawful; that on os
occasions he used his own team for
transportation from Craftsbury, his
home, to Hardwick, his railroad sta
ton, and took receipts therefor from
his hired men or his children. The
charge was So per trip. The legislative
committee expressly stated that 1t
made no findings as to whether these
charges for his own team were lawful
charges, but did find that he wrong
fully stated in his account of expenses
that he had "paid out" this money.
There were involved too the hotel bills
accrued on account of this extra per
diem charge when he started from
home the day before. When the suit
was brought by the attorney general
for the recovery of the money, the
specification filed in court was to re-
cover the precise things included and
covered by the legislative committee S
report. The county court at the trial
held as a matter of law that as to all
the items above mentioned, the state
could not recover, because it appeared
in evidence that the auditor of &C
counts knew the facts substantially
when he allowed the account, and that
as a matter Of law the state could not
recover money paid out upon the al
lowance of the auditor when the audi
tor 3 mistake was a mistake of law
rather than of fact. That is an impor-
tant legal question but the ruling of the
court means nothing one way or the
other as to the wrong doing of How
ard. 1t was decided purely and sim
ply as a legal proposition.
The legislative committee further re-
ported that it found that Howard had
. charged for time on three visits to
Springfield, Mass, four days service,
and expenses, and another trip to
Springfield and Boston, with two days
time and expenses, one trip to Han
over, N. H., to stay over Sunday with
his son, charging the state with two
days time and expense, one day when
he attended the republican state con-
vention at Montpelier and charged the
state with one days time and his ex-
pense, and further that he charged in
a certain trip to Burlington the expense
of member of his family, including it
in his own expense. These various
items amounted to about 500, and they
were included in the specification filed
by the attorney general when he
brought suit. These items were sub
mitted to the jury, and the jury found
the facts just as the legislative com
mittee found them, and found YER
dict in favor of the state for the full
amount.
The effect of the jury's verdict,
therefore, is that so far as the jury
had the question before them, they sus-
tanned the findings of the legislative
committee in every particular, ana
they found, in effect, in those specific
instances that Howard rendered no
service and incurred no expense for
which the state was liable. The legls-
lative committee reported "that by
means of vouchers and accounts appar-
emily correct on their face, but false in
fact, he has been paid the items above
reported" The jury by their verdict
fonnd the same thing