Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1915-03-06

In redirect, he said he would not have
allowed any bills Of defendant had he
known there was any duplication in
the charges. He voted to allow bill OF
exhibit No. "a, altho 1t was not o. KID.
Had he known that said bill was not
Just he would not have voted to allow
1T. Exhibit No. "a is the claim upon
which the indictment is brought.
Point Hard Fought.
The fact of preparing the resolution
amendment Of Dec. 10, 1914, was here
gone into and was persistently and
stubbornly fought by the defense,
question by question. The state sue
ceeded in getting evidence relative to
this important fact before the jury and
the trend Of the states interrogation
indicated the theory that said amend
me1t resolution was not prepared in
good faith and was not for the purpose
of correcting an omission in the records
of the minutes of the board. Argument
of the defense strongly supported the
regularity of the method usef and
action taken to correct an omission of
serious import to the records of the
board. The witness stated that an
amendment resolution was prepared
Dec. 10. 1914, to correct the record of
the minutes passed. which omitted that
part of the resolution agreement to
allow defendant So per day for mis-
assistant and $3.50 per day for his
helpers. He did not prepare the reso-
ultion but said that the same was pre-
pared by Attorney Ward upon his own
motion and advice, that Attorney Ward
was not in the employ Of the board and
that the board paid him no compensa-
ton for services.
On recross examination witness said
he explained to Attorney Ward the
omission in the resolution of record and
that the attorney then prepared for the
board the amendment resolution and
advised the placing of same on record
to cure the defect as shown In the
minutes Of the meeting of the board in
March. 1918. ~ y e s
City Clerk Stout, Of Eldora, was re-
called to identify other warrants paid
to the defendant for services rendered
the city of Eldora by himself and men.
MARKS Recalled.
Charles Marks, member of the board
for eelven years and chairman for a
number of years and one Of the de-
PENDANTS in the case Hardin County vs..
the Board of Supervisors, again took
the stand. In answer to interrogations
he testifies: The board had an UNDER
standing with the defendant for a num-
Der Of years, which was repeated from
year to year. whereby he could hire
men at his own price and charge the
county higher price; that the defend
ant was to receive IS per day for man
competent to use an instrument; he
had consented to such an arrangement:
Could call to mind 40 bill that any
member had objected to: that upon the
approval of the chairman Of the board
the auditor of the board was authorized
to issue warrants in payment Of bills.
He did not know that defendant was
employing incompetent men; had he
known such to be true he would not
have approved Of amounts charged in
bills or greater than that paid, he
would not allow two or more bills for
one days's time Of labor If he knew it;
had he known that bills contained
charges for services rendered the city
of Eldora, he would not have approved
of said bill; he would not have ap-
proved of bills had he known that the
statements of some were not true. He
could not say that defendant did private
business for the city Of Eldora while in
the county's employ: that the county
furnished defendant with certain sup
plies but could not say that county
paid for his typewriter.
On cross examination he said the
scale of prices /, So to ngineer, IS to
assistant engineer, and $3.50 to helpers
per day, had been paid for q number
of years. The scale Of $3.50 Per day had
always been paid. Reason for the said
contract or agreement was because the
defendant was considered more COM
potent than the county TO secure COM
petent men. The defendant had al
ways given the county satisfactory
service. He remembered of scale res
olution being passed in March, 1913,
and not having been recorded. In De-
cember, 1913, he went to get counsel
on the matter and was advised that
said omission could be cured by an
resolution properly re-
corded, and that such resolution was
prepared Dec. 29,' 1913, Witness found
no Inconsistencies in bills presented to
the board; bills Indicated number of
days only and not wages paid by the
He had found no false
report or attempts Of defendant to
cheat the board: he did not find any
thing wrong with any Of the defend
ants bills but always, found them in
accord with the agreement; had never
competency &c defendants
men but found the work done satisfac-
tory. On redirect he said he had heard
that defendant did work for city Of
Eldora.~ Questioned as to the amend
ment resolution, he thought It was
prepared just before or AFTER the In
proceedings: that he coun-
seieI Attorney g 1g.gy We: instead Of the
county attorney. He did not know at
this time that Attornsy Ward was the
counsel; that he !, heard
very little complaint In 1918 but later
had heard considerable complaints
about the services Of the defendant and
llfs men. sssB
sss Bills in. Evidence.
Witness here was given bills on ex-
hibits showing amounts due defendant
and the amounts allowed and paid
lin. Bills a. follows:
= ~ & Z 81. ss -