The Eureka sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1902-current, 1911-07-08
REPORT OF SPECIAL AUDITOR
1. Il. Rogers, Appointed to Expert
Books of County Officials,
Makes His Report
Eureka, Nevada. July 4. 1911.
Honorable Board of County Commits
sioners Of Eureka County, Nevada


sioners Of Eureka County. Nevada
Gentlemen: In accordance with
your instructions l have-assisted by ].
McOharles-examined and checked the
books of the several officials handling
the finances and records of the county,
from April 1. 1910. to June 80. 1911, in
elusive.
l submit herewith balance sheets
Nos. l and 2 giving the information de.
sired, in about the same form you have
been getting from month to month.
and l believe fully accords with the
law.
Justice Oromer's docket was examined
and showed no business for the period
named above.
Justice Requa's docket showed con-
siderable business and the amount was
fully credited by Treasurer.
Justice Strattan's docket has not yet
arrived. and all l could do was to take
into account the credits shown by
Treasurer.
Collections of county funds by Sheriff
was checked and fully accounted for by
Treasurer.
Funds collected by Assessor proved
correct and were properly credited.
The poll tax collections cannot, how
ever, be checked up with any accuracy
at this time of year on account of re.
oeipt books being out in the hands Of
the various collectors.
The tax rolls for 1909 and 1910 were
gone over and all extensions and foot.
ings carefully checked.
In that Of 1909 a few Insignificant
errors ranging from u to four cents
were found. Some in favor of and
some against the County, but upon the
whole it was about a stand off and
they were passed by us as unworthy Of
notice.
In that of 1910 one error Of one cent
against, and one of ten cents in favor
Of the county. were the only differences
discovered. The County is .o9 ahead
on the entire roll. This. on some
s52, 900. 90 worth of business, is. in my
opinion, pretty close work.
Balance sheet No. 1 covers last nine
months Of 1910. One discrepancy only
was found. A difference of 81 90 in
T%reasurer's balance on closing books for
December 81. 1910. and the balance OBJ.
tanned by us for same date.
This difference is in outstanding war
rants, the list used by Auditor and
Treasurer in striking a balance at that
time could not be located and the lump
sum only was available.
A full list of the warrants found to
be outstanding at that time is given on
balance sheet No. l..
l have advised that hereafter a record
Of outstanding warrants be kept from
month to month in a book set aside for
that purpose alone.
But one error was found in the nine
months we are now considering.
Warrant No. 1894 dated December s,
1910, in favor of S. O. Strattan was
drawn for $50. 25 instead of $780, 5 as
shown on face of bill to be the correct
amount due.
This was a three-man mistake. First,
by the Clerk in bringing the amount
over from face of bill to back of same.
$4,000 too high. Second, by former
Auditor German in drawing warrant
for amount shown on back of bill with
out referring to face of bill for correct
ness of same, and third, by party &C.
cepting $1,000 more than was due him.
This matter. however, has been
Strengthened out by refund and is noted
on balance sheet No. 2.
Balance sheet No. 2 covers first six
months of the present year and is a
clear record for the officials. No errors
or discrepancies of any kind could be
found. The cash was counted aud found
to be just 10 cents over.
The fee books carefully examined,
and while we did not go over the entire
10 months covered by this report, we
did go over the greater part of it in both
the Auditors and Clerks offices
In the Auditors office. we find that.
as a general thing. short documents,
such as proof of labor, are charged at
full rates allowed by the law as l under
stand it. but very liberal discounts have
invariably been allowed on lengthy
documents where the fees would run
up to a considerable mount. In no
instance did we find an overcharge.
In the Clerks office. the fees being
court fees, were of course entered at
more uniform rates. but here, too, we
found no overcharges, if l understand
the law correctly.
1t is seldom that one has the pleasure
Of auditing books kept OF so high a
standard of excellence. I doubt if any