UIHistories Project: A History of the University of Illinois by Kalev Leetaru
N A V I G A T I O N D I G I T A L L I B R A R Y
Bookmark and Share



Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1908 [PAGE 538]

Caption: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1908
This is a reduced-resolution page image for fast online browsing.


Jump to Page:
< Previous Page [Displaying Page 538 of 776] Next Page >
[VIEW ALL PAGE THUMBNAILS]




EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:



510

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS. P E T I T I O N FOR EEVOCATION OF C. P . A. CERTIFICATE.

[July 8

The Committee on Accountancy made the following report with regard to the petition which had been referred t o it by the board:

URBANA, ILLINOIS, July 1, 1908.

To the Board of Trustees, Chicago, Illinois. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN—Your committee on accountancy, pursuant to your instructions as given at your meeting of May 2. 1908. (Minutes pages 463,) has held a hearing on the petition of John Everett for the revocation of the C. P. A. certificate of William H. Roberts. In accordance with section 5 of the law twenty days' notice of this hearing was given to all parties concerned. The hearing was held in the building of the school of pharmacy beginning at 2:00 o'clock p. m., Wednesday, June 17th. There were two sessions; the first continued until~5:30 o'clock Wednesday afternoon, the second was held next morning in the same place. Your committee was represented by the chairman and secretary, Professors Kinley and Robinson, and they were accompanied by Dean Harker as counsel. Mr. Gregory of the board of examiners came in for a while and also gave the committee the benefit of his advice on some points. The peitioner and the respondent were both represented by counsel and various witnesses were heard. The evidence was taken down in shorthand by Mr. E. A. Eulass, court reporter, and a transcript, filling two hundred odd typewritten pages was made and sent to the committee. After reviewing the evidence your committee is of the opinion that respondent, William H v Roberts, did not make fraudulent statements concerning the duration of his experience as a practicing public accountant; and that there is not sufficient ground for the revocation of his certificate. Your committee herewith submits its opinion and decision for approval.

DAVID KINLEY,. MAURICE H. ROBINSON, W. L. PILLSBURY.

University of Illinois, before University Committee on Accountancy. In matter of petition for the revocation of the 'certificate of William H. Roberts, Certified Public Accountant.

OPINION OF DAVID KINLEY, CHAIRMAN.

This is a proceeding instituted by John Everett for the purpose of having revoked Certificate Number 70, which was issued to the respondent, William H. Roberts, of Chicago, of date September 26, 1904. The certificate was issued under the waiver clause contained in section 3 of an Act of the legislature to regulate the profession of public accountants, approved May 15, 1903. The petition charges that Roberts furnished false and fraudulent information in his application for the certificate in regard to the length of time which he had successively practiced as "Public Accountant." It charges that Roberts had not had five successive years experience as a "Public Accountant" previous to the date of his application, and that is the question for decision. In his sworn application made on the 20th of January, 1904, Roberts stated that he had practiced as a "Public Accountant" in the city of Chicago ten or twelve years. He also stated that he had been engaged in managing and liquidating building and loan associations and matters incidental to legal, real estate, and lending work. The evidence submitted upon the hearing showed that Roberts for a longer period than five successive years did practice as a "Public Accountant" in the city of Chicago. The evidence does not show that that was his exclusive business, nor is the committee of the opinion that it is incumbent upon an applicant so to show. In the opinion of the committee it is sufficient for an applicant to show that he held himself out as such an accountant for a period of five successive years and that"he did a reasonable amount of work from time to time covering the period, although he may have been engaged in other lines of business. The evidence so shows.