Evening Republican, Volume 14, Number 263, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 November 1910 — Spinney Case in Newton County Goes to January Term. [ARTICLE]

Spinney Case in Newton County Goes to January Term.

Kentland Enterprise. The suit of the Board of County Commissioners against Charles W. Spinney to recover an alleged shortage due from Mr. Spinney While actting as county treasurer, was called Monday. Judge Darroch, Hume L. Sammons and E. B. Sellers appeared for Mi. Spinney, and County Attorney Higgins, Judge Wiley and Frank Folt.’; represented the commissioners. The counsel for the defense raised the point that the Board of Commissioners could not bring suit to recover monies paid into the county treasury on special assessments, such as ditches, gravel roads, and the like; that when defalcation exists in such funds suits to recover must be instituted by the parties affected; that boards of commissioners could only sue on a treasurer’s bond for the recovery of short ages in funds that were common property of the county such as taxes, court house bonds and bonds issued by and for the benefit of the entire* county. The counsel representing the commissioners contended that the bond of a county treasurer covered all monies coming into his hands as such official by virtue of his office, and as custodians for the county the commissioners were the proper parties to enter suit for recovery. Judge Hanley, however, sustained the demurrer, and that part of the complaint alleging shortages in various road, street and ditch funds was thrown out. The items aggregate about SI,OOO or $l,lOO. The exact amount cannot be stated, as the ditch funds are badly mixed, and while the county claims a shortage based on the report of Wallace & Sutton, we are informed that Mr. Spinney claims a balance in his favor. No question was raised concerning Mr. Spinney’s liability for taxes collected, and which the report shows him to be short something over $3,000, and a few smaller items. The issues being joined the defense asked for a continuance of the case, and the county consented, both sides agreeing that it might be well to await the finding of the examiners now at work on the books of the auditor and treasurer during the past five years, and the Court expressed a desire to see the report of the state examiners before taking up the case. The case is set for trial on its merits January 11th.