Show WELLING CASE DEFENSE HITS BOARD ACTION o Right of Examiners to Allow Salary Item Attacked Judge Roger I. I McDonough Frida Friday Fri Fri- da day afternoon admitted the tho Golda Richards' Richards salar salary claim of as evIdence e in the tho trial of Secretary of ot State Milton t II Welling Ho He also admitted the payroll bearing her name and a check Issued to h her r. r The proper way to claim a salary salary salary sal sal- ary from the state government became became became be be- came a center of ot controversy Friday Friday Friday Fri Fri- day as trial of Secretary of State Milton H. H Welling Velling entered its second second sec see ond day in Third district court The defense case took a new turn during arguments with the jury excused when Burton V. V W. W Musser chief defense counsel contended the state board of examiners was not nol authorized to allow a claim for for tor salary of ot Mrs Ir Golda Richards The Tho st state f contends Mr Welling protested the claim of at Mrs Richards Richards Richards Rich Rich- ards as an of at hi his office when she actually never was so em In its statement of evidence the state claimed it would show Mr Welling endeavored to have the tho check indorsed and returned to him for his own use The controversy arose during arguments arguments arguments ar ar- ar- ar on admissibility of the purported salary claim as the states state's exhibit A. A Judge Roger 1 L McDonough re reserved reserved reserved re- re served ruling on admissibility In spite of ot the earnestness atthe of at the tho defense defenso arguments I am in inclined inclined in- in dined to be of the same opinion I was before when these matters t were pr presented on on demurrers Judge McDono McDonough gli said as he re recessed recessed re- re court cout shortly after noon That Is the complaint states a cause of oC action I will reserve ruling ruling ruling rul rul- rul- rul ing formally until 2 p. p m. m Until Friday the defense has contended contended contended con con- tended the tho purported claim is not actually a claim because it did not conform to statutory requirements But it has contended Mrs Richards was entitled to the tho money and it was paid her for tor services in m aiding her husband Harold Richards former former for for- ormer or- or mer clerk in Mr Welling's Wellings office during trips on business for the motor vehicle department formerly under the tho secretary of state This is a claim Mr Musser said in his argument Friday which the tho board of ot examiners was not authorized authorized author author- d to allow not because tho the claim was not genuine but because of the absence of a sworn state tate of the Continued on Page Pace Two DEFENSE HITS BOARD ACTION Continued from Pate Pace One claimant and anel an itemization and due to the fact it was not presented present present- ed by her Mrs Richards Mr Musser cited Utah court cases tried on writs of mandamus and brought because the board of examiners c had refused claims The law governing presentation of claims has been in effect since 1909 and was followed up to 1930 he said claiming the statute had been attached to every Utah state appropriations appropriations bill since 1919 He quoted quote the law as follows Before a claim or claims shall shaH be paid copies in itemized form shall be transmitted with a statement statement statement state state- ment thereof approved and verified by the proper officer or officers to I f the board of examiners for its approval approval approval ap ap- ap- ap or disapproval The board of examiners hereby Is prohibited from allowing any claim payable out of an appropriation tion made herein to the state officers officers of of- boards of commissioners until until un un- un- un til lii the original inal claims and vouchers properly itemized and sworn to by bythe bythe bythe the claimants and approved by the state officer or the proper propel officer of the state board or commission shall shaH be presented to the board of examiners for its ils approval or disapprovaL dis dis- dis- dis approval S Parnell Black assistant district attorney contended that the claim in question answers requirements of oC the statute and was presented through proper channe channel signed by Mr Welling Velling for and in behalf of Mrs Richards and sworn to as true and correct He quoted a statute which he argued argued ar ar- ar- ar gued permits filing of ot group claims The tiThe form of ot claim is not controlling controlling control control- ing in this case Mr Black said Grover A. A Giles assistant attorney attorney attorney ney general associated in the prosecution prosecution prose prose- cution said if it the defense reasoning reasoning reason reason- in ing is correct every county commission commission com corn mission and board of examiners is liable on its bond for hundreds of thousands of dollars in claims al al- al 1 lowed One clash between counsel marked the arguments Mr Black had remarked about a matter of ot form Form Mr Musser shot back When I one is facing the penitentiary penitentiary penitentiary The penalty for tor conviction on such a charge is not more than five years in prison Only one state witness has been called since the trial opened Thursday Thursday Thursday Thurs Thurs- day morning He is Frank Lees secretary to Mr Welling Recalled for direct examination Friday morning Mr Lees testified about tho the manner of at handling salary salary salary sal sal- ary claims prior to the spring of oC 1930 |