New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1914-08-26
Ernst WicherSki Not Guilty
Of Misrepresentation OF Funds
ACCOUNTANTS FIND NO EVIDENCES OF Dis
HONEST DEALINGS IN CITY CLERKS
RECORDS FOR ENTIRE TERM.
System of Book Keeping Very Poor. Apparent
Carelessness Shown, But No Theft of
City Moneys.

City Moneys.
After exhaustive of the and
after frequent conferences with Mr. Wcersk have formed the
opinion that the discrepancies which have discovered
bookkeeping and any dishonest intent the
of the firm Of chartered accountants Warwick, Mitchell
Peat Co. contained their report the City New Um which
presented meeting of the City Council held Thursday
ming opinion the finance committee heartily
report the city which approved and filed at special meeting
called for the purpose last Thursday evening" twill be relief the
of New Ulm to learn that former city clerk Wiche
deau thousands of dollars heaed broadcast to the
world months but that owing discrepancies in his
charged with the $2735 which
taken the $4,000 certified check filed by Wiche matter
good faith after Hebron Co. had estimated that he over
$4,000 short in his accounts.
shortly aerwad transmitted the Finance
Couclos Retz Paend and Hamann The report
vmnous and thour closely written matter
additional hundred typewriter exhibits Be
OF its and because their desire to give Mr. W
possible chance and opportunity explain the mentioned
the the Finance Committee delayed making their final
report o until last Thursday evening
their report they MI Be able e
plain number and he evidently did the
Committee him credit $34o77 these discrepancies
approximately $455o month The total
Whether Mr. Wihe will time be able explain the dcre
connection that supplies which the bulk the discrepancies
amounting
$45432 absolutely the special collections amount
ing
aggregang s26s amounting
20O butcher
holm $685. Nag $4642
fund $780, accounts
$2o2o
fund $ hall fund $780, ub landing fund 1854 In the|
water works department the meter fund agg1egatg 49, the meter
$1252 sinking fund $6OO9 msc
neous and water works department the 782
In
$41 electric light sinking fund amounting 49, msce
laneos receipts from water works
the
nes fees showing SIS contabes reports
discrepancy In
oon $35 The bulk the the light and the sales
Of supplies and lamps
a copenve that the Review publishes that their
opportunity
about.
DISCREPANCIES
First discrepancy The first discrepancy arises on account the receipts
from the City scaling The stubs the weigh bill show during Mr. Wi
che office 174o5 weigh bills issued At bill this
74o5o The the book
difference $3.50 Mr. Wcherski claims
the that having scaling done failed
bills that had
delivered Assuming that Mr. Wcherss statement Committee
nevertheless the that this could
collected made for that Mr. Wche
with the amount of this difference $780,
discrepancy: discrepancy
cherss term $40 bill and check of Mr. Newton for 81 found the
office Mr. Wiche1 claims that the
bank nor there any that attempt was made to collect It, Your
bill the
Wcherski on smatter
Third The third the collection
three March 81 1913,
collected cash by Mr. W $1635 charged of uncoecbe and
carried forward
discrepancy unaccouned for In the
this have
Fourth Discrepancy The fourth discrepancy with the