Page images
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

MATTER OF HULETT, SHERIFF OF WASHINGTON COUNTY-APPOINTMENT OF A COM

MISSIONER

STATE OF NEW YORK

Executive Chamber

In the Matter of the Charges preferred against John M. Hulett the sheriff of the county of Washington

Charges having been preferred against JOHN M. HULETT the sheriff of the county of Washington by JOHN G. Smart of the village of Cambridge in the said county of Wasliington and a copy thereof having been served upon the said sheriff with notice to show cause why he should not be removed from such office and the said JOHN M. HULETT having filed his answer making general denial to the charges preferred therein;

I do hereby appoint CHARLES E. PALMER of Schenectady in the county of Schenectady the commissioner to take testimony and the examination of witnesses as to the truth of said charges and to report the same to me and also the material facts which he may deem to be established by the evidence; and

It is hereby ordered that the Attorney General of the State of New York conduct the inquiry and examination in the prosecution of the said charges; and

It is hereby further ordered that the said examination

before such commissioner proceed with all convenient speed.

GIVEN under my hand and the Privy Seal of the State at the Capitol in the city of Albany this [L S] fifth day of June in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred.

By the Governor:

WM. J. YOUNGS

THEODORE ROOSEVELT

Secretary to the Governor

MATTER OF KEARNEY, NOTARY PUBLICDECISION AND OPINION

STATE OF NEW YORK

Executive Chamber

Albany, June 12, 1900

In the Matter of the Charges preferred against John F. Kearney, notary public, by Seigbert G. Lewin - Decision and opinion

From the testimony it appears that the accused clearly violated the statute in charging more than the legal fees for notarial services rendered by him; but there were extenuating circumstances which must be considered. The complainant appeared long after what are generally accepted as business hours, and was persistent and insistent in securing the services of the accused, who was then in bed, and who at some personal discomfort complied with the request that he appear in his official capacity. The testimony of the complainant really shows that he was

embarrassed at not being able to find a notary at that hour of the evening, and it was a very considerable accommodation to him when KEARNEY verified the papers presented. The average man would have been grateful to KEARNEY under the circumstances. This condition of affairs, however, did not warrant KEARNEY in demanding anything in excess of the legal fee. His excuse that his wife was entitled to compensation for hunting up and bringing an erasing rubber is not a good one. A notary must not charge more than the law allows. He must verify papers and attach his certificate that is what the fee is for and he cannot properly charge for filling out the certificate. Even if he should go out of his office, he must not exact compensation therefor except by agreement. He may decline to act out of ordinary business hours; he may refuse to get out of bed; he may not be compelled to go away from his place of business to act as a notary. But when once acting as a notary he can charge his legal fee and no more. Any compensation for loss of time, clerical service or personal inconvenience must be based upon a contract made and clearly understood before the service is rendered.

Under the circumstances as they appear from the testimony and the report of the commissioner, I do not feel warranted in depriving the accused of his office of notary public, but hereby reprimand him for not having made himself more familiar with the statute regulating fees. Complainant has a remedy at law for the recovery of any moneys paid by him in excess of the fee fixed by statute. (Executive Law, § 85.) I have no authority to order restitution.

THEODORE ROOSEVELT

PUBLIC HEALTH-ORDER EXTENDING THE ORDER TO ABATE NUISANCE, MATTER OF EASTERN PAVING BRICK COMPANY AT CATSKILL

STATE OF NEW YORK

Executive Chamber

WHEREAS an order was issued by me of date July 29 1899, based upon the report of the State Board of Health directing that the Eastern Paving Brick Company at Catskill abate certain nuisances reported by said State Board of Health to exist in or near the village of Catskill, and

WHEREAS the said Eastern Paving Brick Company having made the request that such order be further temporarily suspended, and that a further investigation be made by the State Board of Health as to the status of such Company and the nuisances reported to be maintained by it;

Now therefore it is hereby ordered, and I do direct the sheriff of the county of Greene to suspend the enforcement of my said order of date July 29 above referred to, for the time being and until further notification from me that the same be enforced.

GIVEN under my hand and the Privy Seal of the
State at the Capitol in the city of Albany this
twenty-ninth day of June in the year of our
Lord nineteen hundred.

[L S]

By the Governor:

THEODORE ROOSEVELT

WM. J. YOUNGS

Secretary to the Governor

MATTER OF COMPTROLLER BIRD S. COLER

ORDER DISMISSING CHARGES

STATE OF NEW YORK

Executive Chamber

Albany, July 11, 1900

In the Matter of the Charges against Bird S. Coler, Comptroller of the city of New York

One JACOB MACK having heretofore preferred charg s against BIRD S. COLER, comptroller of the city of N. w York, the matter was immediately referred by me to the Attorney General for investigation as to what further action should be had. The Attorney General has handed me a brief of which the following is a copy:

"TO THE HONORABLE, THE GOVERNOR.

SIR: With reference to the charges filed with you by JACOB MACK against BIRD S. COLER, comptroller of the city of New York, and by you referred to me for investigation, I have the honor to submit the following:

I have carefully examined the evidence presented by the petitioner in support of the charges, and also the records and papers on file in the comptroller's office, bearing upon the transactions complained of.

I find that the facts forming the principal basis of these charges have already been the subject of judicial investigation, in the case of Trowbridge v. The City of New York, reported in 24 Misc. Rep. 517. In that case Justice COHEN wrote a very able and exhaustive opinion reaching

« PreviousContinue »