The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1909-09-24
Pike FUND .''
IS DEPLETED
Auditor Answers in Man
damus Suit. apgp
BALANCE SHOWS St423,91
Alleges Irregularity in the
Journal Dates.
County Auditor. Charles l.. Allen Ayers
That Had lie Complied with the
Demands OF the Commissioners lie
Would Have Violated the Laws.

The reason for the stand taken b
County Auditor Crales l.. Allen |
refusing TO certify the county commits
sioners in the road roller case,
made palmer in his answer to tn
petition in the mandamus suit brough
by the commissioners, and filed in tn
court of common pleas today.
1t developed that there is only $l42S
91 in the pike fund OF the county ant
Therefore the commissioners Will b'
unable to purchase the road rollel
which was contracted for at the price
of S2,S0O The revelation of the
amount of money in the pike fund
was somewhat of surprise and II
really leaves nothing in the mandam-
us proceeding except the matter oi
costs and 1t Is likely that 1t will be
only fought out now to see whether
OF not the auditor or The commission
ers are to pay the costs
E Mr.. Allen in his answer alleges that
by virtue OF Section 1884 of the Re-
vised Statutes of Ohio. the board of
commissioners is prohibited from en=
ttring into any contract, agreement
or obligation involving, the expendi-
ture of money, unless the auditor
shall first certify that the money re-
qlired is in the treasury. 10 the credit
OF the fund from which It is to be
drawn or has been levied and placed
on the duplicate in the process of
collection, and not appropriated for
any other purpose.
The defendant further says that in
total disregard of the statutes the
]. ID. Gillispie and w.
Ii. Holverstott did on November %,
1909 enter into and did sign what
to be a contract for the
road roller referred to Ia the plain
Lif's petition without the auditor hav-
Ing certified and without having
n rade any demand that he certify.
lie alleges that on December 1, 1908
w. II. Holverstott paid 1876, freight
On the road roller which was shipped
10 the plaintiffs on that data and on
december End a bill was presented
for the payment of the freight and
by the commissioners
The auditor alleges that on April 10
1909 resolution was entered upon the
commissioners journal and signed by
)ne of the plaintiffs in which 1t is
ecited that the road roller referred
g "has been purchased. H. Is claimed
hat this resolution was only signed
Iy j. ID. Gillisple and was the only
'esolution presented to him for his
Mr., Allen further claims that on
Iune 5, a resolution was passed by
he commissioners reciting that GER
ain errors had been made in the
'osolution passed on April 10 which
'rrors were as follows. That the
plaintiffs j. d. Gillispie and w. II.
Io.verstott found it necessary to pur
'Lase the road roller on November
2. 1908 instead of the end, and that
he road roller was delivered Decem-
'er /, instead Of January i, and that
he date Of the purchase of the road
oller should be April II, 1909. Jt d..
In conclusion the auditor says that
here Is but $li23.91 in the pike fund,
IN amount insufficient to pay for the
Dad roller and he claims that IL he
iad certified as requested, he would
ave done so against the provisions
Il the statute which requires the
commissioners to secure the certificate
before they enter into any contract.
I Is alleged that the contract for the
Dad roller was made In the Office of
he county surveyor and not in the
commissioners Office at a regular
Meeting.
The auditor asked that the case
against him be dismissed and that he
'ecover his costs.
His attorney is John H. Clark.
The commissioners maintain that
iad the auditor certified in the be-
ginning as requested. that the pike
und contained so small an amount
cgal proceedings would have been
Unnecessary and the controversy
would never have occurred.