The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1912-03-01
Owe
She it1 ] al az

This discount II the sheriIs are
found to be entitled to it is greater
than the discrepancies found against
Sheriff Hartman, but II ne Il moi EN-
titled to It when the supreme court
hands down its opinion. he win mot
have to return 1t to the county, as
most. other shsrifs win, but instead
win ollythaye To reimburse the state,
and county S1.614.O6. of which amount
$55.95 comes to the state, and $1,55s.11
to the various funds OF the county.
The discrepancies found In Mr.. Har-
mans account are mainly from two
sources-interest added to taxes after
the first Of January, and excessive
commission received on collection of
taxes-he being allowed seven and
one-half instead of i've per cent, a,
provided by law. The only item of
any size at all found against Mr..
Hartman beside commissions and in.
terest. was an item of $4,000, road
capitations returned bellRauhn,,
which were not charged to the sheriff
in his settlement of 1907 for 1906
taxes.
Appended to the report of Chief
Accountant Everett Dover, who was
assisted IN the eudits by R. M. Kit
tie, julius scherf and j. H. Otto, was
the following explanatory not regard
ing the discount:
Sheriff Hartman was not credited
with discount in hts settlements. IN
the event the courts hold the sherifr
is entitled to credit for discount al
lowed to taxpayers, in additiontto the
legal commissioners, then exasheriff
Hartman should be credited with the
above amount OF discount ($1,673.74)
against the amount held to. be due
from him. Until after the question
has been adjudicated by the courts
ex-sheriff Hartman is not asked to
refund to the county the amount held
to be due ($1,55S.11) as said amount
is less than the estimated amount of
discount set out about (s1,673.74. In
the event the courts hold the sheriff
is not entitled to discount then the
excessive commissions and allowan-I
ces are held to be due from Ex-
ChartAP LTorr,oy, tt
In nearly all-the counties of the
state where the accounts of the sher-
IFS have been audited by the state
auditors, the county courts have al.
lowed the sheriffs discount on taxes.
In no instance has the tax depart:
ment made this item finding against
the official, but the amount as near
as possible, has been ascertained, and
attention called to It in the audit.
This position was taken because there
was difference of opinion as to just
what the courts would hold. The case
has been in the breast of the supreme
court of appeals for some time, but no
decision has been rendered. In the
counties where the sheriffs have not
been allowed the discount, of course,
it was commended the sheriff was not
entitled to it, but instead the money
belonged to the county. This item,
in many cases, will be larger than
any discrepancy found against the
sheriff. and will mean-if the su-
preme court decides against the sher-
ifs-an enormous amount of money
will be turned back into the county
treasury.
The audit has been fled at Peters
burg. the county seat of Grant county,
by Mr.. Blue, and as stated above III
the opinion of the higher court should
favor the contention of majority of
the sheriffs and county courts, will
be the first audit that county will
be indebted to the sheriff instead OF
he reverse. i