The bee. (Earlington, Ky.) 1889-19??, 1913-04-04
Dr. Vickers Exposes Misap-
preparation of County Money
AnvertIsem.nt

and maki.g copicG; recording license
reports; making exonorG,ions from
taxation; orders calling special
terms OF the Fiscal Court; record
ing School superintendent reports
oyercharges for registering voters
by AFFIDAVIT, recording report OF
vacant land fees; recording delin-
quent tax reports; filing school
census reports; recording instruc-
lions for working the roads and
copies; recording sherlff's report oil
taxes collected; recording sherlff'a
report of land sales; listing tay pay
ers, and report of taxes collected.
All those charges are for work for
which the law says he shall not
charge the county. He = allowed
$1,000 per day by the Fiscal Court
for waiting on the Fiscal Court,
which certainly ceems liberal enough
to show that It was intended that
he should record It's orders. For
waiting on the courts where a fee
is allowed by law, the sheriff and
the TALLER get $500 per day and 1t
seems that five times this amount
was meant to include all services
rendered to the Fiscal Court. An
examination of the former sheriff's
settlements will show other large
| anna litagoIi., rnootyod -, NJ. AEttI,
for like charges. Prior to April 5th,
1910, for some years the county had
a treasurer who paid out its monies,
but on April 5th, 1910, the Fiscal
Court entered an order dispensing
with the treasurer and directing the
sheriff, who collected them, to pay
out tho county's money, and allowed
him, in addition to his other fees,
commission OF per cent. on the
amount to be paid out by him. In
1910 this commission amounted to
about $742.99, in 1911, S643.12,
and in 1912, $715.5s. Besides these
fees the shcrirf has been allowed at
various times $500 per day for
waiting on the Fiscal and Quarterly
Courts, the exact amount OF which
I have not learned. All Of these al
lowances to the sheriff in my opinion
are Illegal.
On October 23, 1900, Mr.. Morrow
was your County Attorney. and he
got the Fiscal Court to enter an Or
der authorizing him to bring such
legal proceedings as he thought fit
to collect back taxes upon franchises
heretofore listed, assessed, or GER
titled for taxation, and allowing him
% per cent. of the net amount,
which should be collected by the |
county on such franchises. On jan
uary 27th, 1903, the Fiscal Court |
allowed Mr.. Morrow S1,G5O.45 for !
nstituting proceedings to collect |
franchise taxes from the L. & n. |
and l. c. railroads, and this sum .
was paid TO Mr.. Morrow. No suit or .
proceeding was ever instituted by .
Mr.. Morrow to recover these taxes,
and the only work he ever did, If /.
any. TO recover these taxes was to .
sign his name TO a brief prepared b. .
other attorneys and probably write
some letters to the other attorneys.
The franchise taxes for the collec-
ton of which he took this county
money had never been listed, assess
ed, or certified for taxation on or be-
fore October card, 1900, but these
railroads had refused to list or as
sess them and other attorneys than
Mr.. Morrow filed suit against the
railroad to compel the listing of
these franchises for taxes, and they
were not listed until in 1902. Under
the law 1t was Mr.. Morrow's duty to
have rendered all the services neces-
sary to collect these taxes without
any additional fee over his salary of
S550.00 and it was illegal for him
to receive any of this $165O.45, even
If he had rendered any service to the
county, which he did not, and much
more Illegal because he did not rem
der any service. This money can
not now be recovered from Mr.. Nor
row If he should plead limitation
against its recovery, but honesty re-
quires its payment to the county
Again Mr.. Morrow was employed
and paid by the county to make the
sheriff's settlement for 1909. In
this settlement he made the mistake
of failing TO charge the sheriff with
S2,297.4S, tangible tax collected Of
the l. C. r. r. as shown by the cash
book of the sheriff, and his tax
hook, and he also failed to charge
the sheriff with $63.S1, penalties
and interest on taxes collected by
him. After this, attorneys were
employed by the county TO examine
the sherif's settlement for FIVE years
back and recover all sums due the
county Hereunder. These mistakes
we're discovered and the sheriff paid
4 b{c Ynnnaxy info pourt ITndpr IT'S