Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1916-04-15

to the Jail with prisoner Mr.. Rich
ards always took the commitment
right oyer to the sheriff's office in the
court house and gave It to Doran pc
cause he knew that he was the one
who kept the books,
II Doran was not in the Office then
the commitments were\ always laic
on the desk. When orr by whom
they were written up while he was not
there, Mr.. Richards did not know bu'
he said that he had seen Mr.. Doran
start to enter them on the books
while he was still in the office.
Deputy Doran always told the turn
key when a mans time was up Some
times he gave him list the night be-
fore and sometimes he just told him
The witness testified that he knew
Of Mr.. Cremer hiring taxis to help him
in his work while he was still with
him.
Supervisor ls Heard.
J. R. Stodghill, member of the board
of supervisors, was heard in reference
to the calling to account of Mr. Crem
err for some alleged overcharges In
his accounts.
In the regular routine of their
work, Mr.. Stodghill said, the board OF
supervisors was called to pass upon
the claims filed by the sheriff.
Referring to a, bill for $64 which
was offered in evidence, the witness
said that it was filed on October 4
1915, by the sheriff and the amount
Of $64 was asked for fees In criminal
cases. On October 7. 1915, 1t was re,
jected. Another report was filed on
October 16, 1915, by the sheriff which
asked $64 for mileage and expenses
The last was allowed by the board.
Talked to Cremer.
Mr.. Stodghill said that he noticed
the items were the same In both bills
and the total was the same in the last
as in the first claim.
The witness said he had CONVEX.
sation with the sheriff about the time
the bill was filed. Their talk had to
do with the filing, rejection and &C
ceptance of the claims.
The supervisor told the sheriff that
it did not look good to change it like
that and also that he thought he was
charging too much for service.
The sheriff replied that he could not
tell Just the number of miles he had
travelled to which Mr. Stodghill said
that business of that kind was liable to
get Mr.. Cremer into trouble.
Cremer then said that he wanted to
do what was right but he didn't know
just how to get at it. He maintained
that the state auditing department at
Des Moines, with whom the examiners
work, had told him one thing at one
time and different thing at another
about how to charge these accounts.
When asked about instructions,
which Chief Examiner Wall is suppos-
ed to have given ,Cremer, Mr.. Stodg.
hill said he could NOT say as he stepped
into the Groom just as the conversation
was about ended.
Knew Items the Same.
On cross examination Mr.. Stodghill
said that he knew the items on the
second claim. under the heading mile
age, were the same as on the first un
der expense.
He also knew that at the time the
bill was allowed there was memor: :
dunn, made on the bill by the county
attorney, which referred to the charg'
ing for mileage and>expense fees
When he. as one Of the supervisors
allowed the bill he also understood
that some Of the items, representing
miles were not actually miles in view
of the county attorneys opinion.
When questioned about the general
difference of opinion among the attor-
neys of the state over the sheriff's
fees, what constitutes them and what
does not. the witness said that he sup
posed there was such difference al
though he did not know it.
Walked to Court.
Joe Cohn told of being arrested in
his place of business at 432 East Main
street. on February 25 1916, by Sheriff
Cremer and of them walking to Justice
Noslers court He did not know why
there should be fees Of 81 and expense
of 81 entered in this case.
Take Elkins, 1926 East Main street
was subpoenaed for district court
case and he calculated distances be-
tween his place and several others
called in the same case.
Thomas Hobbs told Of being served
with a grand jury subpoena at his
home, 702 Lee avenue. He sale -.
knew no reason why an expense of 81
should be taxed in the case. On cross
examination he testified that the sher-
if came for him in taxi and that he
had heard he was hunting him several
times before he found him.
Justice H. G. Nosler was used again
Thursday afternoon to testify as to
some warrants being returned to his
office but he did not know whether ii
was the sheriff or the deputy who
returned them.
Obeyed Call Anyway.
A. G. Daniels of Eldon, told Of being
called on the phone by Cremer to ap
pear as witness in district court
case. On cross examination he admit
ted he came the same as if he had
been served personally.
Martin Munley was used to tell OF
being subpoenaed at his home. Al;
North Sheridan avenue, in the case
of the state VS.. John Munley and G.
w. Brown told Of being called in the
same case. They were used by the
state to show that excess charges FOL