The Clarksburg telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1874-1926, 1912-03-07
State May Owe
Sheriff Herman
Instead of His Owing Ii AS
is the Case with other
Sheriffs.

(AA@hANAA@S = GANf @AAAAs - sluG cu-
preme court OF appeals of this state
holds that sheriffs are entitled to dis
counts on taxes. there will be one
sheriff in West Virginia that will
have claim against his county. in
stead of the county against the sher-
III, as result of an audit made BY the
tax department under the act pro-
viding for the inspection ana super
vision of public offices, and to es-
tablish a uniform system of public
accounting.
Discrepancies were found against
John C. Hartman, sheriff Of Grant
county. during his term of Office
from July l, 1905. to July /. 1909, but
he was not given the discount on taxes
as most sherlffs of the state were.
This discount, If the sheriffs are
found to be entitled to it, is greater
than the discrepancies found against
Sheriff Hartman, but If he is not en-
titled to it when the supreme court
hands down its opinion, he will no=
have to return 1t to the county, as
most other sheriffs will, but instead
will only have to reimburse the stalls
and county $1,614O6, of which amount
$685. comes to the state, and $1,55S.1t
TO the various funds Of the county.
The discrepancies found In Mr.. Har-
mans account are mainly from two
sourtes-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 five per cent, az
provided by law. The only item OF
any size at all found against Mr..
Hartman beside commissions and In
terest, was an Item of $1SS.OO, road
capitations returned delinquent,
which were not charged to the sheriff
in his settlement of 1907 for 1906
taxes.
Appended to the report of Chisf
Accountant Everett Dover, who was
assisted in the audits by R. NJ. Kit
tie, Julius scherr and ]. H. Otto, was
the following explanatory not regard-
ing the discount: T. i..lll ofaf.'3 o..
Sheriff Hartman was not credited
with discount in his settlements. III
the event the courts hold the sheriff
is entitled to credit for discount al
lowed to taxpayers, in addition to the
illegal commissioners, then ex-sheriff
Hartman should be credited with the
above amount Of discount tsf67S74
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 n
refund to the county the amount held
to be due ($1,55S.1U as said amount
is less than the estimated afnountiof
discount set out about ($1,673.14. In
the event the courts hold the sherift
is not entitled to discount then the
excessive commissions and allowaR.
ces are held TO be due from Ex-
Sheriff Hartman"
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 1t 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 40
decision has been rendered. In the
counties where the sheriffs have no.
beon allowed the discount. OF course,
it was, contended 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 81.
prcme court decides against the shef-
iffs-an enormous amount of money
will be turned back into the county
treasury
The audit has been filed at Peters,
burg, the county seat of Grant county,
by Mr.. Blue, and as stated above il
the opinion Of the higher court should
favor the contention of majority Of
the sheriffs and county courts, will
be the first audit that a county viii
be indebted to the sheriff instead Of
the reverse.