The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1912-03-02
KEFUkI ID fLEu
Special Auditors Say District
Clerk Owes County $21,692.
This Due for Fees Collected by
Him.
THOMAS SAYS IT'S WRONG
Ready to Pay What Is Justly
Due.
Question That the Courts Must
Decide.
SAYS IT'S WRONG

Decide
After working just four days less thar
six months on the job, the special ae-
countants employed by Shawnee county
have fled their repoIs, on one Office,
This report covers the Office of clerk
of the district court and charges that
Richard L. Thomas owes to Shawnee
county $21, 692-71 from the earnings OF
his Office from January 1, 1907, to Aug
ust 81, 1911.
The report from the accountants
went to the county board at O'Clock
Friday evening. Clerk Thomas and his
attorneys were not notified that the
report had been filed The first init
nation which Thomas received that the
report was completed, was when he
was asked for a newspaper interview
concerning the figures contained in the
statement. After looking over the re-
port and taking no official action, the
board placed the document on file.
With the county clerk they gave the
bulky document to a morning paper
for publication, without themselves
going on record or electing to stand Oh
the claims of the accountants. Similar
action was taken by the board when
the Koening report was filed in Aug
ust. After causing its publication, the
board held a special session and repudi-
ated the report.
In arriving at the conclusion that
Shawnee county's share of the earn
ingS in the clerk office is more than
$21 ,000 the auditing firm presents IL
bulky document burdened with figures
and notations and conclusions of law.
These figures were reached after the
accountants had spent weeks in the
clerks office, had sent their findings
to experts for compilation and by these
men were compelled to verify and alter
many items.
Less than two months was spent by
Thomas and two auditors employed ct
his personal expense in covering the
same period of business in the office.
On the findings made in this report
Thomas will stand. This report shows
there is due the county about $4,000
If the county board concludes to &C
cept the report of their auditors, issues
will be drawn and the question of
division of fees in the clerks Office will
be settled in the courts.
Report of Special Auditors.
The report gives the total collections
in the clerks Office in the four years
and eight months at SAL 50.9S Litiga-
ton costs are given at $34, 937.S7, with
fees for copying documents at $2,9526S.
Then the report claims for the county
SO, $50. 43 N unclaimed and lapsed fees.
and bonds for costs in the
clerks hands are given at $11,342.S5-
The auditors claim a deficit of $19,-
94243 in bank deposits, but hold only
a technical question of one day in re-
cording the deposit. Their figures show
1872, Sc in the banks to cover net
liability of $33, 035.06. But the alleged
deficit of August 81, is admittedly off
set by deposit by Thomas ON Sep
TENDER 1, of S10,046.25.
Following a long recitation of find
ings in the office, the report criticises
The methods in use in THE clerks office
and suggests an established system OF
bookkeeping. 1t also raises question
the payment of $40 in fees
to County Auditor Larimer. Then the
regular auditor is taken to task. He
is criticised for not enforcing the sub
by the clerk of quarterly re-
ports to the board. No reference is
made in the report to the law requir-
ing the board to insist on these re
ports at the risk of a heavy penalty
Or forfeiture of their jobs.
Some idea is given the public con-
the volume of business ham
died in the clerks office, in the state
nent contained in the report, which
shows that 1912 cases were canvassed
in the audit. In this statement, the
board is advised that the figures
shown on the fee books in 1,763 cases
10 not correspond with the amounts
collected by the clerk 1t is charged
hat Thomas collected more in these |
Eases imam MS lee DOOk Calls lot Alter
him for this action. the
auditors take the amounts collected |
and apportion to the county their full |
share of the illegal fees" under a |
very broad and uncertain construction
IF the statutes.
Action will probably be taken on |
he report at the Monday session of |
he board. 1t is generally agreed by |
both the members of the board and |
attorneys for Thomas that the question |
IF a division of the fees must be set |
led in the courts.
I'VE have taken no action at all as !
,et," said F. B. Simms, chairman of (
he board today in discussing the re-
BORT land have merely placed it on |
lie. No, we did not notify Mr.. Thomas I
hat the report was received and have !
aid nothing to him about it,
Commissioner Sinner was of the |
opinion that the report had been for
nally accepted. This theory. is not
,orne out in the commissioners rec
,rds and is denied by Simnls.
Thomas got his notice of the re- /
,ort through the papers and that
,ught to be enough said Sinner toll
lay. HE can now come before the
,oard and say what he wants to do