OCR Text |
Show UTAH COUNTY CLERK ANSWERSKARTCRNER Commissioners Authorize Robinson to Have Books of Predecessor Examined. Special to Tho Tribune. PROVO, Feb. 6. County Clerk A. V. Robinson came back at tho statement of former Clerk M. E. Kartchner. Jr.. now deputy secretary of state, today and cited sped tic Instances of alleged discrepancies In tho books of his predecessor. He said that his examples only led him to believe that a thorough examination of tho books would disclose manv more such Instances. He has been authorized by the county commissioners to employ an expert accountant to oxamine the books and make a detailed report as to their condition. When seen by a Tribune representative representa-tive tonight, County Clerk A. V. Robinson Robin-son said: "Regarding Ivartchner's desire to have me cite specific cases of where there arc discrepancies, I will stato as follows; "On September 1C one bill for 58.10 was paid by warrant 09668 to Taylor Brothors company. Then on N'ovombcr IS another bill for SG.-15 was paid bv warrant war-rant No. 30G. which was duplicated and paid in a bill of $7.00 on December 17 by warrant No. 61C. Tho check allows ?C15 overpaid. An audit of tho clerk's fee book for tlie fivo and ono-half days in January, 1913, shows a shortage of at least $32. three Items of which amount to o. On August 20 tho district court register of action, causo No. 2485, shows that $5 was received, but the amount cannot be found on tho fee book for that date. Again on December 4, 510 was received in cause No. 2602, which Is not on the fee book of that date. Again on December 20, In cause No, 2S10, $10 was received which does not show on the fee book of that date. "For tho five and one-half days in January the outgoing officers drew from the county funds, instead of at the rate of salaries paid for their term, at the rate fixed for thoir successors. If the amount had been figured Tor the flv and one-half days In January at the same rato they wero paid for the previous month, all officers would have drawn 5313.CC. But instoad they drew $811.80, S2S.M in excess of what they wero entitled en-titled to. T call attention to this matter mat-ter to show what an Independent audit would probably dlscloso in other Instances." |