The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1940-07-25
ASHBY IS GIVEN
RELEASE FROM
BOND AT HEARING
Magistrate DEGREES There Was
insufficient Evidence To Hold
Him On Charge OF Having De-
frauded The Commissioners
DEFENSE PRESENTS AUDIT

At a preliminary hearing be-
fore Trial Magistrate Charles F.
White yesterday afternoon, it
was decreed that there was in
sufficient evidence to hold Jesse
j. Ashby Jr., Treasurer of Gar
rett county, who was charged OH
June 6 by the County Commits
sioners Of Garrett county with
having fraudulently obtained
from the County Commissioners
the sum of $6,099.11, funds be-
longing to the county.
The decision of Magistrate White
automatically released Mr.. Ashby
from bond of $1,000 for his appear
ance at the September Term of the
Circuit Court under which he had
been held following the preferring Of
the charge. The charge came as
result of several months auditing
of the accounts of the county by GER
titled public accountants, Wooden and
nation furnished the commissioners by
the auditors was the basis upon which
they proceeded.
The item in the report was that of
double credit for discount on taxes
collected, levy of 1884, $3,12O22; levy
of 1885, $2,968.89, a total of $6,09911,
and upon these items action against
Mr.. Ashby was based.
Mr.. Ashby's attorneys, Ernest Ray
Jones and Walter w. Dawson, gave
an explanation of how an, audit should
be made and introduced at the hearing
an audit made by Daniel H. Carroll,
of Baltimore, former State auditor,
and H. P. Stuck, of Oakland, which
showed figures different from those
of the audit by Wooden and Benson.
While the final audit of Wooden and
Benson showed items needing eXpla-
nation by the treasurer to be $9,40420,
the audit of Mr.. Carroll covering the
period 1881 to March 81, 1910, showed
that the deficiency from the actual
cash on hand March 81, when the
audits were completed, was only
$200.42, and asserted that there were
credits in the Treasurer's office of
$21624, which would show that the
county actually owed Mr. Ashby $1562.
The $6,099.11 item was never allowed
in Mr.. CAROLS report, explaining that
it was never cash item and should
not have been considered.
Mr.. Carroll's audit showed that
there was due the county on March
81, SAB ,464.20. The Wooden and Ben
son report showed there was cash on
hand of $43 ,263.78. Mr.. Benson de-
clared on the witness stand that this
was SO ,40420 short Of what should be
there, but Mr.. Carroll contended there
was the deficiency of only $200.24,
which was more than made up by the
credits in the Treasurer's office.
Other items causing argument was
one of $8,068.44, which was an order
for net deficiency, levies of 1881, 1882
and 1888, and one of $8,05000, which
was a credit for the Treasurel's error
in entering twice the same check re-
ceived from the State Roads Commits
sion for debt service, according to the
items in the Benson report. Mr.. Car
roll stated these were disallowed in
his report and not even considered, as
they were not cash transactions.
In the original charge by the Com
missioners it was alleged that Mr..
Ashby had rendered duplicate bills to
the Commissioners several months
apart for the same items, for which
he received two county orders. These
duplicate bills were exhibited by
States Attorney Neil C. Fraley.
Under questioning by Mr.. Fraiey,
Mr.. Benson said Mr.. Ashby had asked
permission to make up $4,000 delic-
iency, and had check drawn on the
Garrett National Bank for SIS 400. MI.
Benson further stated that Mr.. Ashby
declared that he did not owe the
money, but would put it up under pro-
test. There was no record of it ever
having been turned into the county
fund, according to the testimony.
Ernest Ray Jones, of the defense,
demanded to know the cost of account
ing by Wooden and Benson and was
told about $4,000, of which about
$4,000 had been paid, leaving a bal
ance of $4,000.
Mr.. Jones, in his closing remarks
said he believed the Wooden and Ben
son audit was never intended to be a
straight audit of the county's affairs.
With the two audits before Magis-
trate White for his consideration, both
made by former State auditors, he
ruled that there was insufficient evil
dence to hold the officer for court.