New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1914-10-14

1llO1lC1lS. *
!, finance committee gives it as its
ich have been discovered are due
lg and not to any dishonest intent.
of the weigh bill books show that during
Mr.. Meyers term of office 1862 weigh
bills were issued. At 10 cents per bill
this amounts to $456.2O. The cash
receipts from this source as shown by
the cash book are $454.6O, discrepancy
Of $1.60. Mr.. Meyer has satisfactorily
explained a portion Of this discrepancy,
amounting to 40 cents, leaving $1.20 for
which no explanation is offered. Your
committee therefore is of the opinion
that Mr.. Meyer should be charged with
shat
Third discrepancy The next dis
crepancy arises in connection with the
cemetery trust fund. On March 8,
1892, a resolution was passed by the
city council creating a cemetery trust
fund. This fund is derived from moneys
paid by various persons for the purpose
of having their lots in the city cemetery
perpetually cared for by the city. The
resolution provides that a deposit of $50
shall be required for lots having two or
less graves, and the sum of $1OO for a
lot having more than two graves. Dur
ing Mr.. Meyers term of office he col
lected $50 from seven different persons
whose lots contained three or more
graves, whereas he should have collected
500 from each of said persons. The
total amount short collected by him on
this account is $3.50. In explanation
of this matter Mr.. Meyer states that he
was not aware of the resolution above
referred to and that he assumed that a
charge of $50 was made for each lot,
irrespective of the number of graves that
it contained The resolution in question
is OF record in the city council proceedings;
his predecessors in office made their
charges in accordance with the reso-
luton; and attention is especially called
to this resolution in the cover of the
receipt book for payments to this fund.
In view of these facts your committee
is Of the opinion that Mr.. Meyer could
with reasonable diligence have informed
himself of the resolution in question.
BY reason of his failure to do SO the city
has lost $3.50. We are of the opinion
that Mr.. Meyer should be required to
undertake the collection of this amount
if it can be collected, and if not, that he
should be required to pay any deficiency
into the city treasury.
Fourth discrepancy This discrep-
ancy is in connection with the collection
for electric light service and amounts to
$7.85. It is made up partly Of errors in
footings, partly in computing bills for
light enormously and partly to entering
items in the register for less than the
amount billed. In the absence Of any
explanation concerning these items they
should be charged to Mr.. Meyer.
Fifth discrepancy This discrepancy
is in connection with the collection for
city water and amounts to SITS. It is
partly due to the entry Of items in the
register for less than the amount billed,
partly due to Mr.. Meyers failure to enter
bills at all in the register, and partly to
errors in footings. No satisfactory ex-
PLANTATION has been given concerning
these matters and the items should
therefore be charged to Mr.. Meyer.
Sixth discrepancy. The sixth dis
crepancy arises in connection with the
city water accounts. II appears that
during his term Of office Mr.. Meyer
short billed q large number Of water
accounts owing to the fact, that he
allowed accounts to run several months,
before billing them and then billed them