Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-04-19
GOVERNORS SON
] HAD TO DUPLICATE
s445 AUTO FINES?
Former Recorder Says He
Was Compelled to Twice
Remit Amount.

story hinging on the revelations in
the State motor vehicle department
came out today when it was learned
for s445 to that department last Satur-
day for the fines collected by him when
he was recorder of East Orange, from
which Office he resignedxin 1908.
With the check was letter of pro-
test, contending that he had already
sent a check for the AMOUNT of fines
collected, for which it Was alleged he
had failed to render a proper account
ing. His letter was. as follows:
Enclosed herewith please find my
check for s445, being the amount of
fines collected by ME as recorder of East
Orange, as shown by my records so far
as the same are available. This amount
exceeds the amount shown on the 20 ice
blotter by the sum, of $3.50. As the
matter is so old. j canuot find some o.
my records, which have been misla ID
or destroyed in moving my office. but
the enclosed statement is copy OF a
statement found III my office. which Is
a duplicate of the, one prepared for and
mailed to your office previously, except
| that this statement as enclosed has the
addition of the notes as to the diverg-
encies with the police blotter.
MY recollection OF this matter, in
which l think YOU will confirm me as
to the parts within your knowledge,
is that | sent you a check which ap-
parently never reached you; that some
| time thereafter / called at your office
and stated to Mr.. Transue. you being
absent, that | had SO done, that the
check had not been returned and / had
received no receipts, and asking him
to Investigate the matter: that you
wrote me stating that you had no rec
ord of the receipts of the check and
that l Immediately, upon receipt of the
letter sent YOU a duplicate check, of
the receipt of which you also have no
record and which have not been able
to find among my returned checks.
The matter has never been mentioned
by you to me until last Thursday, the
Sth inst, when came to Trenton to
see you about il. having been
Informed that day that you stated
that these fines had not been paid, nor
has my attention ever been called to it
in any way until that day, although We
have seen each other and conversed on
other subjects, probably upward of Il
hundred times in the interim and as
recently as April and of this year.
Owing to the lapse of time and the loss
of some of my records, / am not now
able to state whether the police account
or my own is correct. although my
recollection is very strong that my own
is the correct amount, as l recall in the
preparation of my earlier statements on
the matter that my figures exceeded
theirs, owing in part to the fact that
one or two offenses were not entered
on the blotter.
The enclosed check; is sent. there
fore, under a double protest: First. IN
the event that 7 find MY earlier checks
to have been paid. and second, in .he
event that find myself in error as TO
the amount"
Mr.. Fort said that he could rot ac-
count for the discrepancy. as the record
in Trenton showed that Mr.. Forts col
Iections of fines imposed between
March %. 1907 and April 4 1908.
amounted to $S1i25. just before the
inauguration Of Governor. Fort inquiries
BY thc1recorder as to. the proper ,lispo-
sitior Of these fines led to an opinion
that they should be Transmitted TO the
State motor vehicle department, but no
section provided any time limit for so
remitting the fines. Agitation concern
ing the failure of magistrates to remit
fines led to an adoption of law setting
thirty days as the limit for holding
fines
According to the former recorder, he
sent check some time. ago covering
the amount of the fines, but added that