COWLEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT.

Years Covered: 1871, [1881], 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875.

Cowley County Censor, October 21, 1871.

We learn that Winfield is to have a new paper shortly, to be devoted to the interests of the citizens, and in opposition to the Town Company. The people will be represented.

Traveler.

So the “people will be represented.” We should be glad to see a paper in the interest of the people, but fear that our neighbor has been misled. When the sorehead, puny, back-biting little clique of this place start a paper in the interest of the people they will have to change their base materially. As for the Town Company, so far we have had nothing to say in our paper, nor do we now propose to make that an issue unless driven into it by the deluded invalids of the little clique styling themselves the “people.” The three men who brought suit against the Town Company at the last term of the District Court found that the Moses who was to lead them out of the wilderness was incapable of the talk, and now they would have the people think that the local affairs of Winfield are the only issues involved. See how consistent they are! Go at any time down main street and you will see one or more of those sages buttonholing every man who is so foolish as to listen to them, and telling how infamous the “Ring” is. The best illustration of the situation is the story of the drunken fellow who walked into a temperance meeting and on looking at the audience through his bleared and blood-shot eyes declared they were all drunk. The office-seekers have formed a little clique and they call the great mass of the people the “Ring,” and the bolters from the People’s Convention, together with the rest of the little clique, are “the people.”

“How we apples swim.”

Cowley County Censor, October 28, 1871.

E. P. HICKOK, CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT, WILL TAKE FILINGS FOR THREE DOLLARS EACH. Office in the Court House, Winfield, Kansas.

NOTE: OCTOBER 28, 1871, ISSUE OF CENSOR WAS THE VERY LAST ONE

ON THIS MICROFILM.

1881. Note...out of date sequence. On same roll as Censor. MAW 1/4/2000

Cowley County Courant, November 17, 1881.

The County Commissioners have declined to call a grand jury for this term of District Court. a petition signed by 782 taxpayers was presented to the board asking them to not make the call, while there were only 519 asking for the grand jury. This act of the Commissioners will save the county several hundred dollars of useless expense, and an inestimable amount of jangling and quarreling.

Cowley County Courant, November 24, 1881.

[Note: There is some question about the name of murdered man. The Traveler referred to him as “James Riely,” and Winfield papers called him “Riley.” From everything I have seen in newspapers, RIELY is correct spelling. MAW 1/4/2000]

The trial of Thomas J. Armstrong for the murder of James Riley at Arkansas City on the evening of the 17th of October last, was concluded last Wednesday, in the District Court, the jury returning the verdict of murder in the second degree, Thursday morning, after having been out about ten hours.

It appears from the testimony in the case that there had been a horse race in the Indian Territory on the afternoon preceding the evening of the murder, and that Riley owned one of the horses. During the race some misunderstanding arose regarding the starting of the horses, Riley and his friends claiming that the word at which the horses were to be started had not been given, and Burch, the owner of the other horse, and his friends claiming that it had. Armstrong, who had been betting on Burch’s horse, was heard to make threats against the deceased during the controversy.

After the conclusion of the race, the parties had returned to Arkansas City. In the early part of the evening, Armstrong, in company with a man by the name of Adams, went into Riley’s store, and shortly after they got in there, Armstrong invited Riley to have a cigar. Riley replied that he would not smoke with anyone who would bet against his horse. Armstrong said he couldn’t smoke with a better man, as he thought he was the best man in town.

Riley remarked that he would bet him twenty or twenty-five dollars, whereupon both parties put up the money. Several parties who were standing by induced them to put away their money.

Riley or his clerk at this time informed the crowd that they wanted to close the store and proceeded to blow out the lights. The crowd started out of the building and Adams had got nearly to the door, when he was pushed out by Riley, but turned and attempted to re-enter the building, and was again pushed out by Riley and fell upon the sidewalk.

Riley went up to where he had fallen, kicked, or attempted to kick him. Armstrong, who was standing a few feet from Riley, started towards him and told him to not kick Adams, that he was drunk. Just as he started he was caught by Marshal Fairclo, who told him to hold, that there was no use of there being any difficulty between him and Riley. Armstrong attempted to get away and was pushed by Fairclo into the street. Immediately on arising to his feet Armstrong told Riley not to do that again and Riley kicked at him. Armstrong advanced toward him and Riley threw off his coat and stepped a few feet north of where he had been standing to a post which supported the awning. Armstrong at about the same time stepped in the same direction and when within a few feet of Riley used some opprobrious language and fired, the ball taking effect in Riley’s left breast, killing him almost instantly.

[COURANT EDITOR PAYS A VISIT TO DISTRICT COURT, WINFIELD.]

Cowley County Courant, November 24, 1881.

We paid a visit to the District Court Thursday, with a view of taking in the situation so far as possible, and to see if District Court is the same in Cowley County now as it was in 1872, when our city was in embryo, and the brilliant attorneys and learned judges of today occupied about the same positions on the stage of life. On entering the room, many familiar faces, and more strange ones, turned toward us as if to say: “Wonder if he expects justice here!”

George Haywood was being tried for forgery. Judge Torrance sat in his cushioned chair, with a contented look on his beaming face, which would assure anyone that he was the boss, and proposed to run that shop. Sheriff Shenneman was looking extremely wise, and wore a satisfied smile on account of having two years more to rustle for criminals. Knight was taking down the questions and answers, so as to be able to furnish a transcript for the Supreme Court, and get $75 or $100 from the defendant, who would receive in return about ten years in the penitentiary.

Frank Jennings, who would rather succeed in convicting a man then to go home to his family before ten o’clock at night, was asking all manner of questions of an Arkansas City banker, who was so unfortunate as to pay out $500 last May on a forged draft, and Henry Asp set to his side yelling, “We object” to every question, and would then turn and look Joe Huston uneasily in the face until the court would remark, “Objection overruled.”

In fact, everything seemed different from the good old days of yore, and we imagined there would have been more merriment in the proceedings had R. B. Saffold and L. J. Webb been there, throwing law books across the room at each other, Judge Campbell leaning back utterly indifferent, gnawing a musty hunk of dried buffalo meat, and Sheriff Parker dodging around under the tables like a cat shot in the eye with a paper wad. In the good old days of these kind of court proceedings, there were no strings around the lawyers nor rocks suspended to the court’s coat-tail, and everyone seemed to enjoy himself, no matter how many cases he had in court.

Then Torrance, a smooth faced lad, gave but little thought of anything save the day when he would get sufficient funds to send back east for his first love.

Fairbank’s only pride was to prepare a neat little talk for his Sunday school, held at 9 o’clock every Sabbath morning in the little white church on Ninth Avenue, which now supports a boarding house sign.

Wirt Walton cared only to get on his soldier jacket and talk about the swimming times he would have among the country lasses when elected County surveyor.

Allison kept an eye peeled on his Tisdale girl like a youth who had trusted humanity once too often, and been everlastingly and unanimously left.

Billy Anderson would work hard all day in the lumber yard, and then at dusk, tuck the robes around his sweetness in a four dollar a day buggy, and skip out for Thomasville to a dance.

Judge Campbell would tell a lawyer to sit down, in the middle of a carefully studied and written speech, because the verdict of the court had been rendered before the argument began.

A jury would retire to the rear end of Triplett’s saloon, order a bucket of beer, and return a verdict of “not guilty” by ten o’clock next morning.

Jim Kelly, then editor of the Courier and Clerk of the court, would work in the courtroom all day and then sit up till midnight pouring over his exchanges, trying to get a few pointers from which to write a handsome notice of the birth of a cross-eyed infant.

Father Millington was holding justice court in the front end of Fuller’s little frame bank, and would tax up the cost with as much coolness as he now writes column after column of editorial matter on the grand jury system, five days after it is too late for the article to be of any good.

T. H. Johnson was about the only man in town who was really paying strict attention to business, and the way he would stick to the claim jumper until he got his last nickel as a retainer, would shock the modesty of a more cheeky demagogue than Gov. St. John.

But he is gone as well as many other shining lights of that day, and while only about half of the free and happy boys of then have raised to wealth and prominence, with chubby babies growing up to call them blessed, Winfield has become a live little city indeed, and hundreds of energetic citizens, who can never know the trial and pleasures of the early settlers, have made their homes here, and all join hands in the good work of pushing ahead, until death shall call us to that celestial shore from which no tramp printer returns.

[DIVORCE DAY IN DISTRICT COURT.]

Cowley County Courant, December 1, 1881.

Friday last was divorce day in District Court and of course the lawyers were all present. Judge Torrance takes particular pains in conducting cases of this nature, and is often distressingly careful to bring out all the facts surrounding, bearing upon, pertaining to, connected with, or being a part of the marriage ceremonies, the happiness of the honeymoon season, and family relations existing between the wishing to be separated parties. Or, in other words, he is simply immense in digging into matters pertaining to the merits and claims, ever trying to peep behind the returning veil. You see he has seen so much divorce business that he does not intend that anyone, no matter how much the desire may be to get unhitched, or get a bill of “split-blanket” through his court unless the cause is a purely laudable one, and the evidence is made plain as fact.

There were four cases tried in the forenoon, each couple having been married in Missouri, where matters of this degree are easily arranged, as no licenses are provided for by the code. They were all of a similar import, abuse and abandonment, until the fourth case was called.

In this the causes for asking a separation were of a much more serious nature, if the faces of the audience (his honor not excepted) were any indication of the feelings of those who were frightened into silence by the stern look of Sheriff Shenneman. This was the case of Malissa J. Kirby vs. Richard Kirby, O. M. Seward, appearing blushingly for the plaintiff. The reason set up for divorce was impotency, and the history of the married relations as shown by the evidence and papers in the case were about thus-wise; Malissa and Mr. Kirby, a gentleman who tipped the scale of time at about fifty years, were preliminarily married on the 8th day of August, 1872 (pretty warm weather), in the regular happy way, and they commenced living together from that time. The plaintiff now complains that notwithstanding she was in perfect good health, apt, fit, willing, able, and desirous of receiving the embraces of the defendant, returning them with interest and affection, and continued in such a state for days, weeks, months, and years, defendant showed no disposition or willingness to complete the marriage. The plaintiff further alleged that she remains and is still a virgin unknown to the defendant. After the evidence was received, and the court had asked the plaintiff a few modest questions and the answers returned satisfactorily, an anxious smile passed over many faces in the court room, and we could not keep back the thought that had the voluptuous attorney in the case here pending been the defendant from time of marriage, there would never have been any cause of an action of this kind.

The court [Judge Torrance] took up a book, opened it, read or looked through it a few minutes, and then granted the divorce, evidently wishing he could be permitted to give her two.

Cowley County Courant, December 15, 1881.

Five cases have been commenced in the District court since the last term of court, namely, I. D. Skinner vs. O. C. Skinner, attachment; L. Scott vs. Margaret Weir, foreclosure of mortgage; G. W. Chaplin vs. John & Sinnie Garrabee, foreclosure of mortgage; A. Furst & Co. vs. F. I. Sanford, attachment; A. J. Pyburn vs. N. W. Fitzgerald, attachment of home and lot.

Cowley County Courant, December 15, 1881.

Matt Smith, a United States prisoner, is now in confinement in the county jail. He was arrested yesterday at Arkansas City by George McIntire, for stealing a span of mules from William Butler, who lives west of Caldwell; and his trial will take place the 15th of this month.

Cowley County Courant, December 22, 1881.

When Judge Torrance came upon the bench the several cases on the docket in which he was attorney were transferred to the 12th Judicial District Court, which is now in session at Independence. The most important cases were Hitchcock vs. Tarrant, Boyle vs. Rogers, and Pryor vs. M. L. Read, and all the rest of E. B. Kager County Treasurer’s bondsmen. The most of these cases come up this week and a great many of our citizens and their attorneys are in attendance.

Now we go back in time to 1872.

1872.

Winfield Messenger, July 19, 1872.

Our Attorneys are hard at work getting up their cases for the district court.

[ARTICLE ON FRONT PAGE RE COUNTY DIVISION.]

Winfield Messenger, Friday, August 16, 1872.

COUNTY DIVISION.

EDITOR MESSENGER. As this is a subject that is being agitated in certain localities, I think it would be well to give it a little space in your columns. I cannot see wherein we will be benefitted in the least by making three counties out of the present territory of Cowley and Butler counties; but upon the other hand, I can see that it will be an incalculable damage to all our farmers, as we will then have a third more county paupers to sustain (county offices).

And we will have to build public buildings in three counties where we now have but two; hence, our taxes for everything will be double, if not treble what they are now.

Let us go over into Butler Co. where this scheme originated and see what are the condition of things there; and what have they been doing up there for years. Why they are still fighting over that old bore, the county seats. Which has been for some years at Eldorado and which was at a vote taken there in June voted away from that place to Augusta by a majority of two hundred and six, but the people of Eldorado knew if the County seat left them once she was a dead dog, so the people of that place issued an injunction on the canvassing of the vote and thereby the moving of the county seat. The case was tried in the district court and the injunction was not made perpetual, hence they took an appeal to the supreme court, and while they are waiting for the final decision the Eldorado vagabonds are pulling the wires. And as their motto has ever been “rule or ruin” they are now commencing their work of distinction as they found at the late election they were in the minority. They have been fighting among themselves till they have become so poor they can’t continue without getting someone else mixed into the ring; hence she is trying to make the fight more general by trying to get our peaceful county to mix into the mess.

Eldorado now proposes to give twelve miles off of the south border and take six off of the north border of Cowley and make Douglass the county seat of the new county which is at least nine miles west of the center, which will not be fair but as she holds the balance of power, she will settle that matter and go right on and vote bonds and settle the whole thing while she can, hence it is useless for the people near the center of this proposed county to fall in with this measure with the hope of ever securing the county seat.

If the Co. seat of Butler is brought where it lawfully belongs, it is as near the people near the center of the proposed county as they will be to Douglas. Hence I cannot see their object without it be to pay heavy taxes. The farmers in Cowley and Butler hold the power at the ballot box now and the towns in the valley are contriving to get this power out of the farmers’ hands into their own, and they know if they can get this division perfected and three county seats located in the Walnut Valley, they can get up as many petitions for calling elections and voting bonds as they wish and as they will then have the balance of power they will vote all the bonds they wish to for any and all purposes and we, the laboring classes, will have to pay the expenses, and ruin is our final destiny.

We have but to look in order to see the ruinous effects of towns having the power to run the county; for example, look at Lyon and Bourbon counties, and I think it fair to suppose that if we don’t rise in force and nip this evil in the bud this will eventually be our deplorable condition.

It is not the farmers that are howling for division, but it is those men who have a few dollars invested in town lots and wish to get rich off of the poor laboring farmer; this is the class that are in for this measure and not the farmer who has to go this great distance of which they speak. Yours, D. B. COON.

Winfield Messenger, August 16, 1872.

A Worthy Man.

We learn that James Kelly, of Winfield, Kan., is a candidate before one of the Republican Conventions of his state for the office of Clerk of the District Court.

Mr. Kelly was once a resident of this county, and we can assure our Kansas Republican friends that they cannot choose a more worthy, capable, or suitable man for any position to which he may aspire. Kansas republicans are no half way republicans, and in “Jim” they would find no half way candidate.

Mr. Kelly is a man of the true western type, fought his own battle of life, wrung an education between “working spells” amid poverty, grew up to manhood loving free institutions and hating slavery; was an earnest politician in 1860, before he was a voter, and proved his fealty to principle by shouldering his gun when our nation called to arms, and fighting through three years of terrible war. In this county he has held offices of trust, always with honor; and should the convention nominate him, it will have a candidate worthy a Kansas republican constituency. Macomb Journal, Illinois.

Winfield Messenger, August 16, 1872.

ANNOUNCEMENT.

We, the undersigned, believing W. W. Walton to be in every way well qualified to fill the Office of Clerk of the District Court, would present his name from the County at large, before the Republican County Convention to be held in Winfield on the 29th inst., subject to their decision.

C. H. Mitchell, Creswell Tp., John M. McClay, O. C. Smith, Alfred Pruden, Bolton Tp., B. H. Johnson, Beaver Tp., P. M. Wait, Wm. Bonnewell, Vernon Tp.; C. Dewith Spaulding, Moses Herod, Tisdale Tp.; Needham Rogers, Adam Walck, Rock Tp.; Manley Hemenway, Windsor Tp.; Robert Turney, Cedar Tp.; Geo. Melville, Pleasant Valley Tp.; B. Darnall, Silverdale Township. August 20th, 1872.

Winfield Messenger, September 20, 1872.

REPUBLICAN COUNTY TICKET.

For Representative: J. M. McDermott.

For Probate Judge: T. H. Johnson.

For County Attorney: E. S. Torrance.

For Dist. Clerk: James Kelly.

For Supt. Pub. Inst.: T. A. Wilkinson.

Capt. James McDermott is a citizen of Dexter, where he located two years ago. He is a lawyer of ability and is a member of the Republican party. His course, since he has been among us, has been spotless. He is an old soldier, and the principles for which he fought will always be maintained. He comes from the portion of the county which is this year entitled to the Representative.

E. S. Torrance is re-nominated for County Attorney. Those who know the man are satisfied, and all who feel any interest in our county officers need only to look at his work during the two years past just to be convinced of his worth and ability. He is the “right man in the right place” and the people will keep him there.

James Kelly, of Richland, the Candidate for Clerk of the District Court, is also an old soldier, and a true and tried Republican. He is well fitted for the position, and will be a credit to the county.

T. H. Johnson, Probate Judge, by appointment by the Governor, is nominated for Probate Judge. He was nominated by a larger majority than any other candidate. Suffice it to say, that a majority of the people will think of the Judge as did a majority of the convention, and he will be elected.

Extracts from County Commission meeting...

[PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.]

Winfield Messenger, September 20, 1872.

Board of County Commissioners met in adjourned session in County Clerk’s office, September 16th, 1872. Present: Frank Cox and J. D. Maurer. Proceeded to levy the tax for assessment year ago. Ordered that a county tax of one mill on the dollar levied on the Township of Vernon as a Township tax; also of one and one half for Dexter Township; also one and one half for Beaver Township; Richland, two mills, Bolton, two mills; Windsor, one; Cedar, one mill; Creswell, one mill, Posey Creek one and one half; Pleasant Valley, one mill, Nenescah, two mills; Silver Creek, two mills; and Tisdale, two mills.

The following bills were acted upon:

James Parker, sheriff, allowed $21.05.

James Parker, sheriff, laid over $89.

James Parker, sheriff, rejected.

S. M. Morgan was allowed 50 cents per day additional, for boarding persons on old bill, amounting to $11.00.

Kellogg & Scott, County Printing, allowed $7.00.

Bill of Thompson and others for County roads, allowed $16.50.

W. W. Walton, County surveyor, allowed $26.00.

T. B. Ross and others, for County road, allowed $8.00.

Cost in the case of Crane before W. M. Barger, allowed $13.00.

State of Kansas vs. Crane, District Court, allowed $227.00.

A. A. Jackson, County Clerk and abstract from U. S. Land Office, $354.70.

Frank Cox, County Commissioner, $18.30.

J. L. Maurer, County Commissioner, $6.40.

Board adjourned to meet in regular session October 7th, 1872. FRANK COX, Chairman.

Attest, A. A. JACKSON, Clerk.

1873.

Winfield Courier, Saturday, January 25, 1873.

RECAP: Petition for divorce...Catherine E. Smith, Plaintiff, vs. Edward D. Smith, Defendant. Filed in District Court...her name at the time of said marriage was Catherine E. Martindale...she was abandoned by Smith.

Winfield Courier, Saturday, January 25, 1873.

Publication Notice.

RECAP: E. P. HICKOK, PLAINTIFF, AGAINST MICHAEL SULLIVAN AND MINNIE E. JEWETT, FIRM NAME OF JEWETT AND SULLIVAN, DEFENDANTS. Justice Court before W. M. Boyer, Justice of the Peace in and for Cowley county, Kansas.

Jewett and Sullivan will hereby take notice that they have been sued by the Justice Court....The following personal property has been attached: One black horse and one set of double harness. Action brought to recover $29.75, for services of E. P. Hickok as clerk of the District Court.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, March 6, 1873.

Notice of Election.

In the matter of the application of the majority of the electors of the unincorporated town of Winfield, in the county of Cowley, and state of Kansas, to be incorporated into a city of the third class, under the laws in such case made and provided.

Whereas, a petition to me presented, duly signed by a majority of the electors of said town of Winfield, setting forth:

1. The metes and bounds of said town to be as follows, to-wit: Beginning at a point 80 rods east of the n w corner of the n w qr of sec 23 t 32, south of r 4 east, thence s to the n line of the s w qr of said sec, thence s 1 deg, e 1900 feet, thence e 1309 ft. to the center line, thence n on said center line 1884 feet to the n e corner of the s w qr of said section, thence e 80 rods, thence n to the n line of said qr, to a point 1 chain and 10-1/2 links e of the n w cor of said qr, thence n 1 deg w 19 chs, thence w 1 ch and 21 links, thence s along the line between s e and s w qr sections of 21, 19 chs to the s e corner of the s e qr of sec 21, thence w 80 rods to the place of beginning.

2. That said town contains a population of about six hundred inhabitants.

3. That said petition contains a prayer to be incorporated as a city of the third class. And, if appearing to my satisfaction that a majority of the taxable inhabitants of said town are in favor of such incorporation, and that the number of the inhabitants of said town exceeds two hundred and fifty, and does not exceed two thousand, therefore:

I, W. P. Campbell, Judge of the 13th Judicial District of the State of Kansas, being further satisfied that the prayer of the petitioners, in said petition, is reasonable, do hereby order and declare said town incorporated as a City of the Third Class, by the name and style of THE CITY OF WINFIELD, according to the metes and bounds aforesaid, and according to the law in such case made and provided:

And it is by me further ordered that, the first election in said City, for City officers, shall be held at the LAW OFFICE OF SUITS & WOOD, in said City, on the 7th day of March, A. D., 1873. And I hereby designate W. M. Boyer, D. A. Millington, and J. P. Short, to act as judges of said election, and J. W. Curns and J. M. Dever to act as Clerks of said election, and also, A. A. Jackson, A. T. Stewart, and O. F. Boyle to act as a Board of Canvassers.

It is further by me ordered, that the Clerk of the District Court in the county of Cowley, in said Judicial District, shall forthwith enter this order at length on the journal of proceedings of the District Court of said county of Cowley, and shall make publication of the same in some newspaper published in said City, at least one week before the said City election.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand at Eldorado, Kansas, in chambers this 22nd day of February, A. D. 1873. W. P. CAMPBELL, Judge.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, March 13, 1873.

Judge Kelly, of the District Court, has traded for a slick stand-up hat with a stiff rim. He now says “Good morning, Colonel,” with a peculiar French touch that would make a dog laugh.

Excerpts from Cowley County Commission meeting...

MINUTES OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY

OF COWLEY, STATE OF KANSAS, HELD AT WINFIELD,

MARCH 9TH, 1873.

Board met in county clerk’s office. Present: Frank Cox, O. C. Smith, and J. D. Maurer.

Board proceeded to canvass the vote on the bond election held March 1st, which resulted in the defeat of the Railroad proposition by 157 votes, and the County Building proposition by 531 votes. Poll books of Pattens, Omnia, and Spring Creek precincts were thrown out on account of informality.

The following orders were also made.

That the Probate Judge and the County Recorder have their desks repaired. That T. A. Wilkinson procure a county map for his office. That the license money in the county treasury for Winfield Township be paid to the township treasurer. That hereafter no more than $10.00 will be allowed for a pauper’s coffin. That the county recorder be assigned to an office in the building with the treasurer, and that the clerk of the district court remove his office to the courtroom. The Arkansas City Traveler will publish the delinquent tax list, and the county treasurer is instructed to cancel $1,000 in county warrants, as per his request.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, March 27, 1873.

District Court. On Monday of this week court convened at this place, his Honor, Judge W. P. Campbell, presiding. We notice the following members of the bar present from a distance: Hon. W. P. Hackney, from Sumner County; Judge M. S. Adams, of Leavenworth County; and Hon. James McDermott, of Dexter, and C. R. Mitchell, of Arkansas City.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, April 17, 1873.

Town Site Suit Settled.

The following glorious news for the people of Winfield was received by the Clerk of the District Court of Cowley County last Saturday.

SUPREME COURT,

THE STATE OF KANSAS. ss.

To the District Court within and for the 13th Judicial District, Cowley county, Kansas, Greeting:

WHEREAS, In a certain civil action lately pending before you, wherein Enoch Maris et al were Plaintiffs and the Winfield Town Co. were Defendants, a Judgment was rendered by you in favor of the said E. Maris et als on a transcript of which Judgment and record said Winfield Town Company prosecuted a petition in error in the Supreme Court within and for the state of Kansas.

AND WHEREAS, At the January term of said Supreme Court, A. D 1873, on consider-ation of the said petition in error, it was ordered and adjudged by the said Supreme Court, that the said Judgment of the court below be reversed with cost, and the cause remanded for further proceedings, you are therefore commanded, that without delay, you cause execution to be had of the said Judgment of the Supreme Court, according to Law the said petition in error to the contrary notwithstanding.

WITNESS my hand and the seal of said Supreme Court, affixed at my office in the City of Topeka on the 9th day of April A. D. 1873. A. HAMMATT, Clerk.

Thus the vexed suit to set aside the deeds made by the Probate Judge to the Winfield Town Company is now settled and everybody can take hold in earnest to make Winfield what it ought to be—the queen of the Walnut Valley. We have never taken sides in this controversy because it was in the Courts and different persons had different views. Now that Mr. Maris is out of court with his suit, there is nothing in the way of making a prosperous town of Winfield. The town company is also now in a position where it can afford to be generous and pursue a policy that shall contribute largely to the fullest development of the town.

Winfield Courier, July 3, 1873.

Skipped: Editorial by James Kelly in July 3, 1873, issue re problems he had with attorney Sam D. Pryor while Kelly served as clerk of district court. Evident someone lied on journal entry for judgment in the case of Swain vs. Tarrant—Judge Campbell presiding.

[PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COURT.]

Winfield Courier, Thursday, July 31, 1873.

FIRST DAY.

No. 209. In case of Wood vs. Millspaugh, receiver in the case of Bliss vs. Blandin—Order—”That said Millspaugh appear before this Court on the morning of July 29th, and show cause why an attachment should not be issued against him for a violation of the injunction heretofore granted in this action.”

No. 70. State vs. Dunkle. On motion of prosecuting attorney, case was dismissed.

No. 20. State vs. Irwin Smith, Albert Coogle, and Samuel Bryan. Indictment for altering and destroying brands on cattle. On motion of prosecuting attorney, case was dismissed.

No. 19. State vs. Thomas Davis and James Steward. Information for “murder in the first degree.” Leave granted Prosecuting Attorney to file a new and amended information in said case.

No. 80. State vs. William F. Miller. Information, Grand Larceny. The Court assigned to the Defendant, Thomas Mason, as his Counsel.

No. 81. State vs. Wm. Lowe. The Defendant was arraigned, and plead not guilty of the charge of Assault and Battery.

The following Petit Jurors, on failing to appear as summoned, were each fined the sum of $10: William Sartin, S. S. Majors, I. F. Newland, A. B. Gardener, and E. P. Young.

The following named gentlemen were admitted to practice law in all the District and inferior Courts in the state:

J. C. Bigger, of St. Louis, Mo.; Louis T. Michener and D. C. Scull, of Brookfield, Indiana; A. J. Pyburn, of Taylor county, Iowa; and T. H. Suits, of Humboldt, Kansas.

The recognizance of Henry House in the case of the State vs. Warmouth, was declared forfeited.

No. 80. State vs. Wm. Miller—Charge of Grand Larceny. Defendant plead guilty and was remanded to the custody of the Sheriff.

SECOND DAY.

No. __. State vs. Thomas Toole. Jury found him guilty of an assault and was adjudged to pay a fine of $10, and $35 costs.

State vs. Warmouth. The Jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

State vs. George O. Sweet. Indictment for Assault and Battery with deadly weapon, with intent to kill. Defendant was arraigned and plead not guilty—and a Jury was called and a verdict rendered as follows:

“We, the Jury, find the defendant guilty of an Assault and Battery.”

THIRD DAY.

Hoffmaster vs. Hartman. Defendant recover $195 and costs.

The fine of Young, Majors, Gardiner, and Sartin set aside.

[EDITORIAL PAGE: THE MURDER TRIAL OF JAMES STEWART.]

Winfield Courier, Thursday, August 7, 1873.

The Murder Trial.

The most important case tried at this session of the District Court was the case of James Stewart, charged with the murder of Marcus L. Parker, Deputy United States Marshal, last spring on Grouse Creek in this county.

The prosecution was ably and faithfully conducted by the County Attorney, E. S. Torrance, and Captain James McDermott, while the prisoner was defended by Hon. W. P. Hackney, of Wellington, Sumner County; and ______ Putman, of the firm of Case & Putman, Topeka.

Nothing was left undone by these gentlemen to acquit their client. They contested manfully every inch of ground, and Mr. Hackney maintained his reputation of being one of the best criminal lawyers in the state. That Stewart was guilty as an accessory to the killing of Parker, there can be no doubt in the minds of those who heard the testimony on the trial. The jury taking into consideration Stewart’s youth and hitherto good character brought in a verdict of manslaughter in the third degree, for which he was sentenced to the Penitentiary, there to remain at hard labor for the period of three years.

We cannot close this article without making allusion to the witnesses for the prosecution: Joseph W. Vannoy, F. M. Watkins, and G. M. Carpenter. These gentlemen were the posse with Marcus L. Parker when he was killed. Joseph W. Vannoy tracked this man Stewart through Missouri, and finally arrested him in Iroquois county, Illinois. Mr. Vannoy has been in the business of hunting criminals for several years, and Marcus L. Parker is the tenth man that has been murdered by his side while attempting to arrest criminals and although, in nearly every case he has been the target for the first shot, strange to say that he has never yet received a scratch. We wish Mr. Vannoy all the success he deserves in bringing the guilty to justice.

[COURT PROCEEDINGS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS EDITION.]

Winfield Courier, Thursday, August 7, 1873.

The State of Kansas vs. James Stewart: Stewart sentenced to 3 years in state prison.

C. A. Bliss vs. J. C. Blandin: order to Receiver to sell the property.

W. J. Keffer vs. J. C. Smith: continued.

Joseph Bestch vs. Henry Hanson: continued.

C. Perdew vs. J. L. James: stricken from the Docket, being improperly on the same.

F. L. Johnson vs. J. Devore et al: dismissed.

J. T. Hooker vs. E. Davis: continued, plaintiff required to give bond for costs.

State ex rel A. L. Williams, Attorney General vs. Board of County Commissioners: application for injunction, overruled.

W. R. Land vs. J. Bullene: application for valuation of improvements, granted.

F. D. Curtis vs. N. Curtis: application for divorce, granted.

J. T. Dale vs. J. H. Ellege: sale confirmed.

J. S. McMillen et al vs. H. B. Norton et al: sale confirmed.

E. Polk vs. J. L. W. Bell: defendant allowed 40 days to satisfy claims.

Jane Payne vs. H. Payne: petition for divorce, granted.

S. H. Myton et al vs. Winfield Town Co., dismissed.

S. H. Myton vs. Winfield Town Association, dismissed.

C. C. Krow, administrator, vs. G. Peterson: judgment for plaintiff.

C. P. Spalding vs. Will M. Allison: continued.

E. Maris et al vs. Winfield Town Company, dismissed.

W. Rogers vs. J. Renfro, continued.

J. J. Williams vs. A. J. Covert el al, continued.

T. H. Johnson vs. J. L. M. Hill: motion to set aide order of delivery, overruled.

Z. Stubbs vs. S. Jay et al: continuance for revivor.

A. B. Close vs. school district No. 40, dismissed.

D. Spencer vs. J. W. Smiley, dismissed.

J. Bihimers vs. Manse Pickering, dismissed.

J. W. Watson vs. Wm. Daggett et al, dismissed.

Jast. Service vs. C. C. Harris, dismissed.

H. Silver vs. J. Parker, dismissed.

State vs. Lowe: defendant failing to appear at the bar of the Court for judgment, appeal bond forfeited.

Wm. Rogers vs. J. W. Renfro: judgment for defendant.

S. H. Myton et al vs. Winfield Town Co., dismissed.

Same vs. Winfield Association, dismissed.

G. W. Ballou vs. J. A. Brake: demurrer sustained.

J. Swain vs. S. Tarrant, new trial granted.

State vs. Wm. F. Miller: sentenced to two years in State prison.

A. Smith et al vs. A. J. Reeves, continued.

C. M. Wood vs. J. W. Millspaugh, receiver: defendant required to give bond in the cost of $2,000 to obey the injunction.

D. M. Osburn et al vs. M. Palmer: sale set aside.

W. Hineken vs. N. J. Thompson, dismissed.

W. Rogers vs. A. J. Covert et al, dismissed.

Wm. Bartlow vs. C. A. Bliss et al, continued.

[RECEIVER’S SALE: CHARLES A. BLISS VS. JOSEPH C. BLANDIN.]

Winfield Courier, Thursday, August 7, 1873.

Receiver’s Sale.

Cowley County District Court, 13th Judicial District, State of Kansas.

CHARLES A. BLISS, Plaintiff )

versus ) No. 207.

JOSEPH C. BLANDIN, Defendant)

NOTICE is hereby given that the undersigned, the receiver in said action, will, pursuant to the order of said court to him directed, on Monday, the 8th day of September, 1873, from 9 o’clock A.M., to six o’clock P.M. of said day, offer for sale at public auction, on the premises the following described real property, situated in said county to-wit: Those tracts or parcels of land and premises situated, lying and being in the township of Winfield, County of Cowley, and State of Kansas, and being in the north half (1/2) of the northeast quarter (1/4) of section number twenty nine (29), township number thirty-two (32), south of range number four (4) east; and bounded as follows, to-wit: One lot beginning at a point in the east line of said north half (1/2) of said northeast quarter (1/4) of said section number twenty-nine (29) distant sixteen (16) rods north from the southeast corner of said north half (1/2) of said quarter (1/4) section and running thence north along said east line thirty-two (32) rods; thence west at right angles to said last mentioned line twenty-five (25) rods; thence south at right angles thirty-two (32) rods; thence east at right angles twenty-five (25) rods by place of beginning containing five (5) acres.

Another of said lots or pieces of land bounded as follows: Beginning at a point in the south line of said north half (1/2) of said section number twenty-nine (29) distant twenty (20) rods west of the southeast corner of said north half of said section number twenty-nine (29) running thence north parallel to the east line of said section number twenty-nine (29) sixteen (16) rods; thence west at right angles five (5) rods; thence north at right angles to the center of the Walnut river; thence down said river along its center to where the same intersects the south line of said north half (1/2) of said section number twenty-nine (29); thence east along said south line to the place of beginning. Containing five (5) acres more or less.

Said property to be appraised by three disinterested householders of said county, and sold for not less than two thirds its appraised value upon the following terms: One-third cash in hand; one-third in six months, and one-third in twelve months from the date of sale.

The deferred payments to be secured by notes bearing interest at twelve percent, per annum, after maturity, with at least two sufficient sureties and by mortgage on the premises. The purchaser to receive deed and possession upon complying with the above terms.

Said property being a grist and flouring mill and mill property and water privilege belonging to the parties above named.

Witness my hand at Winfield, Kansas, this 6th day of August 1873.

JOHN W. MILLSPAUGH, Receiver.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, August 21, 1873.

The suit of Chas. A. Bliss vs. Joseph C. Blandin that has been pending in the District Court for some months has at last been amicably settled, Mr. Bliss purchasing Mr. Blandin’s interest in the mill. We speak for the entire community when we say that everybody will be pleased to learn this fact. The mill will now be splendidly repaired, and ere long we will again hear the pleasant hum of the burrs as they grind into flour Cowley County’s first crop of wheat.

[THE DISTRICT COURT: OCTOBER TERM.]

Winfield Courier, Thursday, October 16, 1873.

The following cases will stand for trial at the October term of the District Court of Cowley County and have been placed upon the trial docket in the following order.

FIRST DAY. CRIMINAL DOCKET.

State of Kansas vs. Norman Shether.

State of Kansas vs. Clabourn Purdew.

CIVIL DOCKET.

Zimri Stubbs vs. Samuel Jay et al.

Clabourn Purdew vs. Jonathan L. James.

Wm. Bartlow vs. Jennie S. Tousey, Adm’x et al.

Joseph T. Hooker vs. Emanuel Davis.

C. P. Spaulding vs. Will M. Allison.

John C. Smith vs. Samuel P. Berryman.

James Beatch vs. H. Hanson.

Herwig and Lane vs. A. D. Keith.

SECOND DAY.

J. J. Williams vs. A. J. Covert et al.

Geo. W. Ballou vs. James A. Brake.

Wm. Rogers vs. James Renfro.

C. J. Brane vs. E. Fredrick.

N. J. Keffer vs. J. C. Smith et al.

W. M. S. Curtly vs. John B. Plumb.

Amos Smith et al vs. A. J. Reves.

T. H. Johnson vs. Jas L. M. Hill.

State of Kansas Ex rel A. S. Williams, Att’y Gen’l vs. Board of Co. Com. of Cowley Co. and Stewart & Simpson.

H. W. Gillett vs. A. D. Keith.

Thos. L. Clark vs. A. D. Keith.

Smith and Boswell vs. A. Bisbee.

THIRD DAY.

B. W. Woodard & Co. vs. A. D. Keith.

Geo. W. Pitkin vs. A. D. Keith.

Theo Egersdorf vs. A. D. Keith.

A. V. Polk vs. John Richards.

A. H. Hoerneman vs. John Richards.

Richard Woolsey and John Brown vs. W. J. and R. A. Mowrey.

L. Ray Blake vs. Elter Arlet Blake.

Martin L. Read vs. S. E. and John Dudley.

D. W. Allen vs. John Weis et al.

Chas G. Fawcett vs. Geo. Hayden et al.

G. W. Bailey, C. M. Sloan, and C. L. Rood vs. Board of Co. Com. of Cowley County.

Garrett W. Thompson vs. Saml P. Reynolds.

FOURTH DAY.

Sarah E. Apple vs. Jacob Apple.

Thos. Tool vs. Wm. W. and Maria A. Andrews.

John C. McMullen vs. W. D. and R. L. Wilson.

Drake & Hall vs. Wm. H. Brown.

Wm. Bartlow vs. Phillip Koehler et al.

Isaac and Ezra Greenwold vs. Phillip Koehler et al.

T. K. Johnson et al vs. Winfield Town Co.

W. E. Doud vs. A. G. Headrick.

John Swain vs. Seymore Tarrant.

Mary E. Porter vs. John Porter.

C. A. Bliss vs. Joseph C. Blandin.

C. M. Wood vs. John W. Millspaugh.

JAMES KELLY, Clerk.

E. S. BEDILION, Deputy.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, October 30, 1873.

Among the lawyers in attendance at the District Court from abroad, we notice Col. J. M. Alexander of Leavenworth; Hon. Wm. P. Hackney, of Wellington; Gen. Rogers of Eureka, and Judge M. L. Adams of Wichita. From Arkansas City are C. R. Mitchell and A. J. Pyburn. From Dexter, Hon. James McDermott. Our own bar is, as usual, ably represented by Fairbank, Torrance & Green, Webb & Bigger, Manning & Johnson, Louis T. Michener, Pryor & Kager, and T. H. Suits.

[PROCEEDINGS OF THE COWLEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT OCT. 29, 1873.]

Winfield Courier, Thursday, October 30, 1873.

Proceedings of the Cowley County District Court, to Oct. 29th, 1873, the Following Causes having Been Disposed of.

CRIMINAL DOCKET.

Arkansas City vs. Norman Shether, continued.

State of Kansas vs. Clabourn Purdew, dismissed.

CIVIL DOCKET.

Hayword vs. Green, continued.

Zimri Stubbs vs. Samuel Jay et al, continued.

Clabourn Purdew vs. Jonathan L. James, dismissed.

Wm. Bartlow vs. Jennie S. Tousey Adm’x et al, dismissed.

J. T. Hooker vs. Emanuel Davis, continued.

C. P. Spaulding vs. Will M. Allison, continued.

J. C. Smith vs. Samuel P. Berryman, continued.

J. Bestch vs. H. Hanson, judgment for plaintiff.

Helwig and Lane vs. A. D. Keith, death of Lane suggested, and cause continued for revivor.

J. J. Williams vs. A. J. Covert et al, judgment for plaintiff by agreement.

Geo. W. Ballou vs. James A. Brake, continued.

W. Rogers vs. J. Renfro, settled and continued.

C. J. Brane vs. E. Fredrick, continued.

N. J. Keffer vs. J. C. Smith et al, appeal dismissed.

T. H. Johnson vs. Jas. L. M. Hill, judgment for plaintiff.

State of Kansas Ex rel A. S. Williams, Att’y Gen’l vs. Board of Co. Com. of Cowley Co. and Stewart & Simpson, dismissed.

Thos. L. Clark vs. A. D. Keith et al, continued.

L. Ray Blake vs. Etter Ariet Blake, continued.

M. L. Read vs. S. E. and J. Dudley, judgment by default.

D. W. Allen vs. J. Weis et al, judgment by default.

Chas. G. Fawcett vs. Geo. Hayden et al, judgment against defendant for costs.

G. W. Bailey, C. M. Sloan, and C. L. Rood vs. Board of Co. Com. of Cowley County, continued.

G. W. Thompson vs. S. P. Reynolds, continued.

J. C. McMullen vs. W. D. and E. L. Wilson, continued.

Wm. Bartlow vs. Phillip Koehler et al, judgment for plaintiff.

John Swain vs. Seymore Tarrant, report of referee confirmed.

Mary E. Porter vs. John Porter, continued.

C. A. Bliss vs. Joseph C. Blandin, dismissed.

C. A. Bliss et al vs. J. C. Blandin, dismissed.

Haywood vs. Greer, attachment dissolved.

C. M. Wood vs. John W. Millspaugh, C. A. Bliss given leave to become a party defendant, and cause continued. JAMES KELLY, Clerk.

E. S. BEDILION, Deputy.

1874.

Winfield Courier, February 6, 1874.

Last Wednesday, Manning & Johnson sued James Jordon before Justice Boyer, for attorney fees for the amount of two hundred and fifty-four dollars. A jury awarded the plaintiffs forty dollars, whereupon they took an appeal, and the case will be carried to the District Court.

Winfield Courier, February 13, 1874.

David Slater and James W. Bryant, the two men who were arrested a short time ago on the charge of assisting Rucker to break jail, were up before Justices Millington and Boyer last Saturday, for a hearing. Judge T. H. Johnson appeared for Slater, and asked a continuance, which was denied. He then waived an examination for his client, and Slater accordingly gave bail in the amount of $1,500.00, to appear at the next term of the District Court. County Attorney E. S. Torrance dismissed the charge against Bryant, in order to make him a witness in the case. The bail for his appearance as a witness was fixed at $1,000.00, which he has so far been unable to give, and is yet in the custody of the sheriff.

Winfield Courier, February 27, 1874.

There are 85 cases on the docket of the District Court for the March term.

Winfield Courier, February 27, 1874.

Constable Burt Covert arrested Albert G. Headrick a few days ago in Howard County, on a charge of stealing a pair of horses from Judge Saffold sometime last Fall. He had a preliminary examination before ‘Squire Boyer and in default of bail was lodged in jail to await his trial at the March term of the District Court.

[DISTRICT COURT DOCKET FOR MARCH TERM.]

Winfield Courier, February 27, 1874.

District Court Docket.

The following are the cases which stand for trial at the March term A. D. 1874, of the Cowley County District Court, and have been placed on the docket in the following order.

CRIMINAL DOCKET.

FIRST DAY.

1. The State of Kansas versus John B. Plumb.

2. The State of Kansas versus T. T. Rucker.

3. The State of Kansas versus William Slater.

4. The State of Kansas versus Jesse Russell and James Smith.

CIVIL DOCKET.

5. Zimri Stubbs vs. Samuel Jay, et al.

6. Joseph T. Hooker vs. Emanuel Davis.

7. Chauncy P. Spaulding vs. Will M. Allison.

8. John C. Smith vs. Sam’l P. Berryman.

9. Helwig & Lane vs. A. D. Keith.

10. Geo. W. Ballou vs. James A. Brake.

11. C. J. Brane vs. E. Fredrick.

12. Thos. L. Clark vs. A. D. Keith.

SECOND DAY.

13. Richard Woolsey & John Brown vs. W. J. and R. A. Mowry.

14. Geo. W. Bailey et al vs. Frank Cox et al.

15. Garrett W. Thompson vs. Samuel P. Reynolds.

16. Thomas Tool vs. W. W. & M. A. Andrews.

17. John C. McMullen vs. W. D. & R. L. Wilson.

18. William Bartlow vs. Phillip Koehler et al.

19. Land E. Greenwold vs. Phillip Koehler et al.

20. Mary E. Porter vs. John Porter.

THIRD DAY.

21. C. M. Wood vs. John W. Milspaugh, Recv’r.

22. L. Ray Blake vs. Elter Arlet Blake.

23. Sarah E. Apple vs. Jacob Apple.

24. State of Kansas ex rel A. L. Williams vs. the Board of County Commissioners.

25. Benj. Haywood vs. Adolphus H. Green.

26. Benj. Haywood vs. Samuel W. Greer.

27. Benj. Haywood vs. Samuel W. Greer.

FOURTH DAY.

28. James C. Fuller vs. Allen B. Lemmon.

29. C. L. Rood vs. John H. Warrenberg.

30. City of Arkansas City vs. Norman Shether.

31. Amos Sanford vs. Enoch Maris et al.

32. Howard M. Holden vs. Jas. A. Myton et al.

33. Jacob A. Wickline vs. Jacob Richie.

34. Appleton, Noyes, & Co. vs. C. C. Stevens.

35. Thomas Wright vs. J. G. Titus.

FIFTH DAY.

36. Thomas Wright vs. J. G. Titus.

37. Long Bros. vs. C. C. Stevens.

38. Solomon Tyner vs. J. G. Titus.

39. Dora Kiger vs. Henry Kiger.

40. James Hedley vs. Brainerd Goff and Jane Goff.

41. Thomas Wright vs. Amanda Corkins.

42. Conrad Oliver vs. W. C. Hillyer.

43. Samuel Mullen vs. Armstrong Menor.

SIXTH DAY.

44. Mary C. Riggs vs. Benj. H. Riggs.

45. Ransom Johnson et al vs. Nancy Fay et al.

46. L. Bauman & Co. vs. John N. Yerger.

47. John Swain vs. Seymour Tarrant.

48. Will M. Allison vs. John N. Yerger.

49. William Bartlow vs. School District No. 6.

50. R. B. Corkins vs. W. L. Mullen.

51. Abijay Darnall et al vs. John Tipton.

SEVENTH DAY.

52. Wm. A. Sharp vs. Samuel Jenkins.

53. Geo. W. Foughty vs. Sidney A. Moses.

54. E. P. Hickok vs. Board of Co. Commissioners.

55. John F. Graham vs. Leland J. Webb.

56. Blair Bros. vs. Chas. W. Phoenix.

57. Ransom Johnson et al vs. Nancy Fay et al.

58. Thompson H. Johnson vs. F. O. and H. G. Crow.

59. Jerry McCans vs. Isaac H. Phenis.

EIGHTH DAY.

60. S. L. Brettun vs. Andrew J. Covert et al.

61. Oscar M. Stewart vs. Geo. W. Nelson.

62. Theodore Mathews vs. Geo. Lobinguire.

63. Mark Phillips vs. Hamilton Gerrard.

64. Jas. M. Shelly et al vs. Thos. H. Benning.

65. Jas. M. Shelly et al vs. J. W. Meadow.

66. Jas. M. Felton vs. John T. Stewart et al.

67. Andrew H. Hoerneman vs. Ephraim Tucker.

NINTH DAY.

68. Leland J. Webb vs. Thos. T. Rucker.

69. Andrew Dawson vs. William J. Funk.

70. Wm. W. Brown vs. Samuel W. Greer et al.

71. Herman Sartin vs. Charles Johnson.

72. James A. Bullene vs. School Board of School District No. 60.

73. Aaron J. Stanley vs. Permelia D. Stanley.

74. John Weis vs. John N. Yerger.

75. Reuben B. Saffold vs. Earl F. Martin et al.

TENTH DAY.

76. S. L. Brettun vs. Wm. D. Cady.

77. Wm. D. Carver vs. G. W. Rouse et al.

78. Elisha S. Babcock vs. John Jones.

78. John Manly vs. Geo. W. Bailey et al.

79. John F. Graham vs. Geo. W. Bailey.

80. NOTE: 80 WAS OMITTED ENTIRELY.

81. John B. Fairbank et al vs. M. Miller.

82. Leonard Stout vs. E. S. Gray et al.

83. Manning & Johnson vs. James Jordon.

84. Martin L. Read vs. S. E. & J. Dudley.

85. The City of Winfield vs. Adolphus H. Green.

First appearance of Tom Quarles...

ROBBERY: STORE OF W. H. SOUTH.]

Winfield Courier, March 27, 1874.

A couple of the lads in this city overreached themselves slightly when they plundered the store of W. H. South, a few weeks ago. The boys were hunted so closely that they concluded the best thing they could do would be to bring the property back, which they did. They wrapped the watches and other jewelry (with the exception of a few rings and a pocket-knife or two) in a gum cloak (stolen at a dance at Little Dutch recently) and deposited them upon the salt barrels in front of the store where they were soon discovered by Mr. South. The walnut box which contained the watches when stolen, had been deposited in the Walnut River for safekeeping, and was not returned.

On the evening of the day upon which the goods were returned (Wednesday), Lucian McMasters turned states evidence, confessing that Tom Quarles and himself had stolen the jewelry and kept it hidden in Cliff Wood’s timber. The boys were immediately arrested, and yesterday, after an examination before ‘Squire Boyer, were committed to bail in the sum of $500; Quarles to appear before the District Court on charge of grand larceny, and McMasters to appear as a witness. It appears from the confession that there are some dozen boys in this town who have kept up a systematic thieving for the past two years, and it is hoped that this will be a lesson for them.

Winfield Courier, March 27, 1874.

The following are the Attorneys attending at the District Court: Hon. Wm. P. Hackney, Wellington; Hon. Jas. McDermott, Dexter; C. R. Mitchell, A. J. Pyburn, L. B. Kellogg, Arkansas City; Gen. Rogers, Eureka; M. S. Adams, Wichita; Fairbank, Torrance & Green, L. J. Webb, Manning & Johnson, Judge R. B. Saffold, Lewis T. Michener, Esq., Suits & Wood, D. A. Millington, Winfield.

[DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS: FIRST THREE DAYS.]

Winfield Courier, March 27, 1874.

District Court Proceedings.

FIRST DAY.

State of Kansas vs. J. B. Plumb, Dismissed.

State of Kansas vs. Henry Miles, Plea, Guilty.

State of Kansas vs. Jesse Russell and James Smith, Plead Guilty.

State of Kansas vs. E. R. Parker, $5 and costs.

State of Kansas vs. E. R. Parker, $5 and costs.

State of Kansas vs. Joseph Leroska, fine $5.

Zimri Stubbs vs. Samuel Jay et al, Continued.

J. T. Hooker vs. Emanuel Davis, Settled.

J. C. Smith vs. S. P. Berryman, Continued.

Helwig & Lane vs. A. D. Keath, Dismissed.

C. J. Brane vs. E. Fredrick, Continued.

T. L. Clark vs. A. D. Keath et al, Judgment for Plaintiff.

SECOND DAY.

G. W. Bailey et al vs. Frank Cox et al Board of Co. Commissioners, Dismissed.

S. W. Thompson vs. S. P. Reynolds, Judgment by defendant.

Thos Toole vs. W. W. and Maria A. Andrews, Dismissed.

J. C. McMullen vs. W. D. and R. A. Wilson, Judgment by default.

Mary E. Porter vs. John Porter, Divorce granted.

C. M. Wood vs. J. W. Milspaugh, Rec. Continued.

L. Ray Blake vs. Elter Arlet Blake, Dismissed.

Hushfield and Mitchell vs. J. N. Yerger, Judgment for Plaintiff.

THIRD DAY.

State of Kansas ex rel A. L. Williams vs. Board of Co. Com. Judgment on the rules.

City of Arkansas City vs. Norman Shether. Dismissed at plaintiff’s cost.

Amos Sanford vs. Enoch Maris et al, Continued.

H. M. Holden vs. J. C. Myton et al, Dismissed, plaintiff’s cost.

J. A. Wickline vs. J. L. Richie, Judgment by defendant.

[DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS.]

Winfield Courier, April 10, 1874.

District Court Proceedings.

State of Kansas vs. Thomas Quarles, Recognizance forfeited, alias warrant issued, and bail fixed at $1,000.

Stubbs vs. Jay, Continued.

Spaulding vs. Allison, Compromised.

Ballou vs. Brake, taken under advisement until next term.

Clark vs. Keith, new trial and continued.

Woolsey et al vs. Mowry et al. [NOTHING STATED.]

Haywood vs. Greer, Judgment for plaintiff.

Haywood vs. Greer, Judgment for plaintiff.

Fuller vs. Lemmon, Judgment for plaintiff.

Rood vs. Warrensburg, Sale set aside.

Appleton, Noyes & Co., vs. C. C. Stevens, Judgment for plaintiff.

Wright vs. Titus, dismissed at defendant’s cost.

Wright vs. Titus, Remanded.

Long Bros. vs. Stevens, Judgment for plaintiff.

S. Tyner vs. Titus, Judgment for plaintiff.

Kiger vs. Kiger, Continued.

Hedley vs. Goff et al, Continued.

Wright vs. Corkins, dismissed by arrangement.

Oliver vs. Hillyer, Judgment for plaintiff.

Riggs vs. Riggs, Judgment for plaintiff.

Johnson et al vs. Fay, dismissed at plaintiff’s cost.

Burman & Co., vs. Yerger, Judgment for plaintiff.

Bartlow vs. School Dist. No. 60, Dismissed at plaintiff’s cost.

Corkins vs. Mullen, Dismissed at defendant’s cost.

Darnell vs. Tipton, Dismissed at defendant’s cost.

Sharp vs. Jenkins, Judgment for plaintiff.

Foughty vs. Moses, Dismissed at defendant’s cost.

Hickok vs. Cowley Co., Judgment for plaintiff.

Graham vs. Webb & Bigger, dismissed and cost paid.

Blair Bros. vs. Phenis, Judgment for plaintiff.

Johnston vs. Fay, Plaintiff to give security for cost.

Johnson vs. Crow et al, Judgment for plaintiff.

McGans vs. Phenis, dismissed at plaintiff’s cost.

Breton vs. Covert et al, dismissed and cost paid.

Mathews vs. Lobinger, Settled and costs paid.

Phillips vs. Gerard, Dismissed at plaintiff’s cost.

Shelly et al vs. Benning, continued, defendant having twenty days to answer and plaintiff ten days to reply.

Felton vs. Stewart, dismissed at plaintiff’s cost.

Horneman vs. Tucker, Continued.

Webb vs. Rucker, Judgment for plaintiff and order of sale granted.

Dawson vs. Funk, Continued.

Stanley vs. Stanley, Divorce granted.

Saffold vs. Martin, Continued.

Breton vs. Cady, Judgment for plaintiff.

Carver vs. Rause et al, Dismissed.

Babcock vs. Jones, Judgment for plaintiff.

Manly vs. Bailey, continued.

Graham vs. Bailey, continued.

Manning & Johnston vs. Jordon, Dismissed.

Emerson & Co., vs. Clark, Continued.

Jeffries vs. Read, Referee ordered.

W. Tyner vs. Titus, dismissed at defendant’s cost.

Kaylor vs. Veitch, Continued.

State of Kansas vs. Young, Acquitted.

State of Kansas vs. McMasters. Charged with petty larceny. Plead guilty and fined $50 and sentenced to 48 hours in county jail.

State of Kansas vs. McMasters. Charged with grand larceny. On preliminary held in bonds of one thousand dollars to appear at next term of court.

[SHERIFF’S SALE: PERSONAL PROPERTY OF M. MILLER.]

Winfield Courier, April 10, 1874.

RECAP: THE PROPERTY OF M. MILLER, WHO WAS OPERATING a STORE IN WINFIELD, WAS TAKEN ON AN EXECUTION ISSUED OUT OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF WINFIELD UPON A JUDGMENT RENDERED AGAINST SAID M. MILLER, AND IN FAVOR OF JOHN B. FAIRBANK, ELISHA S. TORRANCE, AND ADOLPHUS H. GREEN. PROPERTY SOLD IN FRONT OF M. MILLER’S STORE:

Four Parlor heating stoves; three No. 8 cooking stoves; two No. 7 cooking stoves; sixty kegs of nails; two cross-cut saws; three kegs horse shoes; two No. 7 cooking stoves; one No. 8 cooking stove; one box heating stove No. 88; one No. 25 parlor heating stove; one No. 22 parlor heating stove.

[SHERIFF’S SALE: BREWERY CHATTELS, JOHN N. YERGER.]

Winfield Courier, April 10, 1874.

RECAP:

PLAINTIFFS: Aug Kurtzeborn, M. A. Rozenblatt, Sol Bauman and Meyer Bauman, partners under the firm name of L. Bauman & Co.

DEFENDANT: John N. Yerger.

PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that under, and by virtue of an Execution issued on the judgment in the above entitled cause and to me directed and delivered, I will on the 22nd day of April, A. D. 1874, at 2 o’clock p.m., at the brewery of Himelspaugh & Yerger, about one mile west of Winfield, in said county of Cowley, offer at public sale, and sell to the highest bidder for cash in hand, all the right, title, and interest of the defendant, John N. Yerger, in and to the following described chattels to-wit: Three (3) large barrels. One (1) tub. One (1) mash tub. Thirty (30) beer kegs. One (1) force pump and hose.

Said property having been levied upon as the property of said defendant, John N. Yerger.R. L. WALKER, Sheriff.

Fairbank, Torrance & Green, Attorneys for plaintiffs. April 10, 1874.

Note: Believe this was the “Cave Brewery.”

NEXT ITEM CALLS FOR SALE OF THE PROPERTY.

PLAINTIFFS: Aug Kurtzeborn, M. A. Rozenblatt, Sol Bauman and Meyer Bauman, partners under the firm name of L. Bauman & Co.

DEFENDANT: John N. Yerger.

RECAP: Sheriff selling at the courthouse in Winfield to the highest bidder for cash, all the right, title, and interest of John N. Yerger in and to the following described land situate in said county of Cowley to-wit.

Beginning at a point on the North line of the South half of the South West quarter of section number twenty-nine (29) in township number thirty-two (32) South of Range Four (4) East twelve (12) chains East of the North West corner of said South half of said quarter section, thence South 6" West Four (4) chains, thence North 54" 15' east four (4) chains, thence north 6" East two (2) chains and eighty-two (82) links, thence due West on line three hundred and eighty-two (382) links to the place of beginning, containing land 86-100 acres more or less. The said land having been levied upon as the property of said John N. Yerger.

[EDITORIAL PAGE: LAWSUIT BY GEORGE L. THOMPSON.]

Winfield Courier, April 17, 1874.

THAT LAWSUIT.

Suit has been commenced in the U. S. Circuit Court of the District of Kansas, by one George L. Thompson, for the recovery of something over $6,000, interest included, for which he holds the warrants of this county. Who Mr. Thompson is, we know not, neither does it matter for the purpose of this article. The best legal talent concur in the opinion that judgment will be rendered against the county, for the amount claimed, and the costs of the suit.

The COURIER is charged with being in some way the remote cause of the action against the county, because it is alleged that we opposed bonding the debt. Here is what we did say in the COURIER of Feb. 6th, last.

THE COUNTY DEBT.

We understand, since our arrival at home, that an effort is being made to have Mr. Martin procure the necessary legislation allowing the Board of County Commissioners to fund or rather bond the county indebtedness. We do not believe that the people of Cowley County wish this thing done. Twelve months ago, the circumstances were altogether different. Then we had a Courthouse to build, and many thought it necessary to provide funds for that. But now our county buildings are all complete, we can see no necessity for it. We are very well aware that it would be money in the pockets of a few, for instance, county officials, who have to take most or all their fees in scrip. But we are now hopeful that the tax next year, with care and economy, will clear the county almost, if not altogether, of debt. In the present state of affairs, we would not favor any bill authorizing the Board to bond the debt, without first submitting the question to a vote of the people of the county. And we hope that whatever legislation Mr. Martin secures in that particular will provide that the question be so submitted. We would be glad to hear from our readers on this subject, that we may act understandingly in the matter and take such action as will place the county on the best financial basis, having due regard for those who held the county’s ‘promises to pay.’

It will be seen that the main feature of the above article is to submit the proposition to the voters of the county. If the majority of the legal voters think it would be best to bond the debt, they can so express themselves, and then should it turn out to be a bad bargain, they can blame no one but themselves.

But it is useless to argue the point now; no enabling act was passed, and consequently, the Board can take no action in the matter, unless they may proceed under the act of a year ago, and bond $15,000 of the debt, which is all that act will admit. But it is a “leetle” queer that the very argument we made use of last year in favor of bonding the debt, should be used against us this year, by those who opposed the measure, and signed a remonstrance against it last year.

Whatever else the COURIER may be accused of, ambiguity is certainly not one of our failings; we endeavor to make ourselves understood. The COURIER frankly gives its reasons for the faith it held a year ago. Here they are: “Twelve months ago the circumstances were altogether different. Then we had a Courthouse to build, and many thought it necessary to provide funds for that. But now our county buildings are complete, we see no necessity for it.” There, gentlemen, are the COURIER’s reasons for its seeming opposition to the proposition to bond the county debt. Now, gentlemen, you who signed a remonstrance against it last year and talked, and argued against it, you who denounced those who favored it as being a ring of county officials, to defend the county, what has come over the spirit of your dreams, that you now so ardently advocate what you denounced as a steal last year? Did you oppose it because you hadn’t all the scrip you wanted? And favor it now because you have your wallets full of warrants ready to convert into the bonds of the county? Honest, straightforward answers will relieve the public mind wonderfully.

We will have more to say on this subject hereafter.

Winfield Courier, April 17, 1874.

Sheriff Walker is back from Leavenworth, where he has been to take the prisoners sentenced at the last term of the District Court.

[ITEMS FROM THE TRAVELER.]

Winfield Courier, May 15, 1874.

Mr. Read, a young man who was tried and held to bail for his appearance at the present term of the District Court for robbing a gentleman on Big Cana of $600, has absconded from the county, and left his bondsmen to settle the bill. There is $2,200 reward offered for his arrest, and we are told there are about fifty men after him. He murdered a man in Texas, and robbed a gentleman in Missouri of $1,700 last fall. Detectives were in the Falls with the necessary papers to arrest him for the different crimes he had committed, expecting him to make his appearance at court, and it is supposed he got wind of it and has so far made his escape. He had two hours start of his pursuers. It is confidently hoped that he will be arrested, and that full and complete justice may be meted out to him.

Winfield Courier, May 15, 1874.

We notice that the City Council has paid the costs in the District Court which Eben R. Parker and Joseph Likowski were adjudged to pay for selling liquor without license, amounting to $86.05. Why should the City have this to pay? Every taxpayer in town would like to know. Will our City Fathers, City Attorney, or anyone with a knowledge of the facts, rise and explain?

Winfield Courier, May 29, 1874.

Horse Thieves Caught.

Two men, William Gilmore and Francis J. Seltz, who have been stopping at the mouth of Grouse for some weeks, and of whom we spoke last week, warning the people to look out for them, were overtaken and captured on the Shawkaska River, by Curry, Keho, Blair, and Roberts, last Sunday morning. The men took the horses from the Kaw Agency on Thursday night, came up Grouse Creek, and were going west. The horses belonged to Big and Little Lewis Pappan; half breed Kaw Indians. The horses were missed at daylight, and the Indians started in pursuit, tracking them all the way to Bolton Township, where they received the first news of them. Pappan’s horses were tired out and he persuaded the above mentioned men to follow them on Saturday night, by whom they were captured the next morning.

At sight of the men the thieves ran and were only stopped by the firing of Curry. Seltz received the shot from Curry’s carbine, the ball entering near the wrist and paralyzing his arm. At this, the thieves gave themselves up and begged to be well treated. On Monday morning they were arraigned before Justice McIntire and plead not guilty. The preliminary trial was waived, and the parties were bound over to appear at the district court in the sum of $1,000. Failing in bond, they went to jail.

Bill Gilmore is a man of about 26 years of age, over six feet tall, dark hair, intelligent expression, and mild countenance. He was born and raised in Arizona, and has spent most of his time on the border and among the Indians. In 1861 he was with General Custer, and carried dispatches from Camp Supply to Fort Dodge for General Sheridan, during the fight on the WashitA. He is deeply prejudiced against Indians, and claims he would not have stolen from the whites. In conversation with Mr. Gilmore, we find him to be a well read and experienced man. Wild life and excitement is as familiar with him as his every day meal.

Francis J. Seltz is a younger man than Gilmore, with a countenance not as good or mild. He is a good conversationalist, however, and speaks fluently and rapidly. Seltz did not care to give his history, and was perfectly indifferent on some subjects. His life has been mostly confined to the east, until a few years past. He has had some difficult encounters, but only in self defense. He was free to say that he was a good shot with a carbine and could have killed the four men that were after him if he chose to, but did not want to do it.

With these additional captures, we should think horse thieves would choose some other locality for their operations. Traveler.

The thieves are now resting quietly in jail in this city.

Winfield Courier, June 5, 1874.

Hon. E. S. Torrance is in attendance upon the U. S. District Court, at Leavenworth, on behalf of the county in the case of George L. Thompson, versus Cowley County.

Winfield Courier, July 24, 1874.

HORSE THIEVES CAUGHT.

Fun for the Lawyers, But Death to the Tax-Payer.

A High Old Time.

Last Saturday three young men who had just returned home from Texas were arrested here on charge of horse stealing. They had been followed from the Indian Territory by the parties who owned the stock, and overtaken in this city just as they were trying to dispose of the stolen property. It being late Saturday evening the boys were lodged in jail to await examination Monday morning. However, late Saturday night, Brown, one of the number, with his attorney, L. J. Webb, Esq., appeared before Squire Boyer, waived examination, and in default of bail, was sent to jail to await the September term of the District Court.

The other two, Brocknell and Onstott, were brought up for examination on Monday morning. Squire Boyer, on the motion of the County attorney, and knowing that the U. S. Marshal was ready to re-arrest and take them before the Federal court at Arkansas City, discharged the prisoners. No sooner was this done and Hill, the U. S. Deputy Marshal, attempted to serve his warrant then revolvers were flashed in his face, by two or three deputy Sheriffs of the county. Of course, he was powerless, and the prisoners were immediately re-arrested by a warrant issued by Squire Wood.

Again they were locked up for the night, and Tuesday morning brought before N. H. Wood, Esq., where they plead guilty, and in default of $1,500 bail, each, they were again sent to board at the expense of the county, where all three now await their trial at the next term of the District Court.

This case certainly presents many curious and anomalous features. It is the only case we have ever seen where the accused insisted upon their own guilt, and retained three prominent lawyers to help them plead guilty. The County attorney was willing and even anxious to have them turned over to the U. S. Courts, and thereby avoid expense to the county. But, not their attorneys, Messrs. Webb, Hackney, and Johnson, who insisted that their clients were undoubtedly guilty, and should be held for trial here.

We have no wish to manufacture sentiment one way or the other—but of one thing we are sure, and that is, if the ends of Justice could be reached just as well (which in our opinion it could) by handing them over to the U. S. Commissioner Kellogg, at Arkansas City, and save this county considerable expense, that was just what should have been done. Cowley County has no desire to pay for anybody’s whistle but her own.

Winfield Courier, August 21, 1874.

George Walker brought T. O. Hill’s horse and the thief with him when he returned from Independence last Saturday. The thief, whose name is Bozark, asserted that a young chap named Bodwell, who lives a couple of miles from this city, stole the horse and brought it to him and he merely took it away. Bodwell was immediately arrested, but after a preliminary examination before Justice Boyer, was released. Bozark was placed in jail to await his trial at the next term of the district court.

Winfield Courier, September 18, 1874.

The fall term of the District Court commences on the 28th inst. There are ninety cases on the docket.

Winfield Courier, September 18, 1874.

John Brocknell, James Brown, Henry Bozark, and Dick Walker all take their meals at the Courthouse now. They will receive proper attention at the hands of Judge Campbell at the next term of the District court.

[THE DISTRICT COURT: SEPTEMBER TERM.]

Winfield Courier, September 18, 1874.

The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the September term of the District Court, Cowley County, Kansas, to be held on and from the 28th, inst., and have been placed upon the Trial Docket in the following order.

CRIMINAL DOCKET—First Day.

The State of Kansas vs. Lucius McMasters.

The State of Kansas vs. Thomas Quarles.

The State of Kansas vs. John Brocknell and James D. Brown.

The State of Kansas vs. Joel P. Vandeveer.

The State of Kansas vs. A. T. Stewart.

The State of Kansas vs. Henry Bozark.

CIVIL DOCKET—First Day.

Zimri Stubbs vs. Samuel Jay et al.

John Smith vs. Samuel P. Berryman.

George W. Ballou vs. Jas. A. Brake.

C. J. Brane vs. E. Fredrick.

Thomas L. Clark vs. A. D. Keith.

Clifton N. Wood vs. J. W. Millspaugh, Rec. Sarah Apple vs. Jacob Apple.

Amos Sanford vs. Enoch Maris et al.

SECOND DAY.

Dora Kiger vs. Henry Kiger.

James Hadly vs. Brainard and Jane Goff.

Ransom Johnson et al vs. Nancy Fay et al.

James M. Shelly & Co. vs. T. H. Benning.

Andrew Horneman vs. Ephraim Tucker.

Herman Sartin vs. Chas. Johnson.

John Weiss vs. John N. Yerger.

R. B. Saffold vs. Burl F. Martin.

John Manly vs. Geo. W. Bailey.

John F. Graham vs. Geo. W. Bailey et al.

Fathan K. Jeffries vs. Martin L. Read.

Emerson & Co. vs. Nelson D. Clark.

Wm. D. Carver vs. G. M. Rouse et al.

Elisha S. Babcock vs. John Jones.

Elizabeth B. Loomis vs. Christ Miller et al.

THIRD DAY.

M. Ludley Lee vs. S. F. Roberts et al.

J. M. Shelly & Co. vs. Earnest Raiman.

E. J. Gambal vs. Robert White.

Wm. Douglass vs. Andrew Dehu.

Wm. Rogers vs. Joseph C. Blandin et al.

Earnest Wadsaok vs. Christian King.

Elias Bean vs. Niles O. Bailey.

The State of Kansas vs. Thos. Quarles et al.

Appleton, Foyes & Co. vs. Jas. Parker et al.

The N. E. Loan Co. vs. John Glasford et al.

A. Skinner vs. John R. Davis.

T. H. Johnson vs. Zachary T. Swiggart.

Samuel R. Hunt vs. W. L. Cottingham.

Ottman & King vs. Thos H. Crone.

John B. Lauffer vs. D. D. Lewis.

FOURTH DAY.

T. H. Johnson vs. J. L. Richie.

W. J. Mowry vs. J. L. Richie.

Elijah C. Hawkins vs. Emma J. Hawkins.

John Swain vs. Seymour Tarrant.

J. Griffith vs. John Holland.

L. J. Waite vs. Marion Barnes et al.

J. C. Loomis vs. E. S. Chesney.

John Swain vs. Seymour Tarrant.

B. H. Bush vs. Thos. H. Crone.

Thos P. Jackson vs. Geo. W. Bailey et al.

F. Butterfula vs. H. H. Martin et al.

H. P. Farrar vs. Ida Fredrick.

L. J. Waite vs. W. E. Tansey.

S. L. Brettun vs. Wm. Ledman.

I. C. Musgrove vs. John Kirby.

FIFTH DAY.

Robert B. Finney vs. Alex Dixon et al.

Abel D. Bent vs. Alonzo F. Tryon et al.

Mary E. Claypool vs. Isaac Claypool.

H. S. Silver vs. H. D. Pickering.

Morgan, Young & Co. vs. E. P. Young.

M. Brettun vs. Saml. T. Crane.

M. Brettun vs. Saml Maule et al.

Elizabeth Britt vs. S. W. Britt.

E. S. Babcock Jr. vs. Sylvanus Phelan et al.

S. L. Brettun vs. Edward Fredrick et al.

Mark Phillips vs. Hannah Phillips.

M. Brettun vs. John M. Pattison et al.

M. Brettun vs. John H. Davis et al.

S. L. Brettun vs. C. C. Krow et al.

A. A. Jackson vs. Zephania Silver.

R. Lawson vs. Thomas Lawson.

SIXTH DAY.

Lizzie M. Martin vs. Amos E. Mahaney.

H. F. Bartine vs. H. C. Crow et al.

A. H. Horneman vs. Geo. W. Bailey.

Michael Miller vs. Matilda Miller.

M. A. Andrews vs. Fred Crop.

A. D. Lee vs. F. O. and H. G. Crow.

Mary A. Millington vs. S. Darrah, Admr.

Stephen H. Gibson vs. John Tullis.

I. C. Musgrove vs. Laban L. Williams.

Allen Carleson vs. C. A. Bliss.

Abraham Wild vs. Maberry Spann et al.

E. B. Weitzel vs. Wm. Chase.

Wheeler & Wilson vs. John R. Davis.

City of Winfield vs. V. B. Beckett.

E. S. Torrance vs. County Commissioners.

R. L. Walker vs. County Commissioners.

Sophia P. Hane vs. Will M. Allison.

Geo Stewart vs. Rufus B. Waite.

JAMES KELLY, Clerk.

E. S. Bedilion, Deputy.

Winfield Courier, October 9, 1874.

Lazette News.

The late visits of Captain Walker and his good looking deputy, Burt Covert, produced a stir among the inhabitants of Grouse Creek Valley.

During the sitting of the District Court, Lazette seemed almost deserted, the citizens having gone in large numbers to pay their respects to Judge Campbell.

Winfield Courier, October 15, 1874.

Brown, Brocknell, and Onstat, who have been resting here in jail for some months past, had a hearing before commissioner L. R. Kellogg last Monday, and Brown was discharged. Brocknell and Onstat were bound over to appear before the U. S. District court of Arkansas; E. S. Torrance appeared for the prosecution, and Hackney and Webb for the defense.

Winfield Courier, October 29, 1874.

Leland J. Webb has had 107 cases in the district court; 96 civil and 11 criminal. He won 85 out of the 96 civil and the entire 11 criminal. Can your “reform” candidate or any other Lawyer in the district best that? Webb was nominated because of his well known ability. And if the people of Cowley want a man who knows how, and will take care of their interests, they should vote for L. J. Webb for County Attorney.

Side note...does not pertain to Cowley County District Court...

Winfield Courier, November 5, 1874.

Capt. Geo. R. Peck, our United States District Attorney, distinguished himself as an able lawyer by the very efficient manner in which he prosecuted several important cases at the late term of the U. S. District Court held at Leavenworth. He is without doubt one of the rising young men of this state.

Winfield Courier, November 26, 1874.

RECAP: Samuel D. Pryor and Eustace B. Kager, partners, under the firm name of Pryor and Kager, plaintiffs, versus Thomas L. Clark, defendant. James Kelly, Clerk, District Court, with Pryor & Kager, plaintiffs, as attorneys, notify Thomas L. Clark he has until Dec. 15, 1874, to answer to suit for judgment against him of $300 with interest from Oct. 1st, 1874, on the following real estate: Lot number three (3) in Block number eighty (80) in Arkansas City...the same to be sold to satisfy judgment.

[NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION: DEFENDANT, AMOS E. MAHANEY, ETC.]

Winfield Courier, November 26, 1874.

Notice to take Deposition.

In Cowley County District Court 13th Judicial District, State of Kansas.

John A. Mimebaugh, Plaintiff, vs. Amos E. Mahaney, Martin L. Read, and Lizzie M. Martin, Defendants.

The defendant Amos E. Mahaney, will take notice that on Monday, the 25th day of January, A. D. 1875, the plaintiff above named will take the depositions of sundry witnesses to be used as evidence on the trial of the above cause at the office of Irving Howbert, at Colorado Springs, El Paso county, in the Territory of Colorado, between the hours of eight o’clock a.m. and six o’clock p.m. of said day, and that the taking of the same will be adjourned from day to day between the said hours until said depositions are completed.

WEBB & MILLINGTON, Atty’s for Plaintiff.

1875.

Winfield Courier, February 11, 1875.

Bankrupt Sale.

In the District Court of the United States for the District of Kansas.

In the matter of Hiram Brotherton, Bankrupt. IN BANKRUPTCY.

By virtue of an order issued out of the aforesaid Court, I will on Monday, the 1st day of March A. D. 1875 at 1 o’clock p.m. of said day at the south front door of the courthouse in the City of Winfield, county of Cowley, State of Kansas, sell to the highest and best bidder, for cash, all the open accounts, and promissory notes against divers persons, remaining unsettled and unpaid, now in my hands belonging to said bankrupt estate. R. L. SAFFOLD.

Assignee of the Estate of Hiram Brotherton, Bankrupt.

Winfield, Feb. 8, 1875.

Winfield Courier, February 11, 1875.

The following is the list of petit jurors drawn for the March term of the District Court: J. B. Nipp, S. W. Chatterson, S. P. Berryman, P. F. Endicott, J. E. Dunn, G. W. Melville,

J. W. Melville, J. W. Weimer, A. T. Gay, Sanford Day, Isaac Howe, B. C. French, S. M. Fall, Thos. Hart.

Winfield Courier, February 18, 1875.

See Judge Saffold’s notice of Bankrupt Sale.

Bankrupt Sale.

In the District Court of the United States for the District of Kansas.

[In Bankruptcy.]

In the matter of Hiram Brotherton, Bankrupt.

By virtue of an order issued out of the aforesaid Court, I will on Monday, the 1st day of March, A. D. 1875, at 1 o’clock p.m. at said day at the south front door of the Courthouse in the City of Winfield, county of Cowley, State of Kansas, sell to the highest and first bidder, for cash, all the open accounts, and promissory notes against divers parties, remaining unsettled and unpaid, now in my hands belonging to the said bankrupt estate.

R. B. SAFFOLD.

Assignee of the Estate of Hiram Brotherton, Bankrupt.

Winfield, Feb. 8, 1875.

Excerpts from City Council meeting in Winfield...

[CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS: FEBRUARY 15, 1875.]

Winfield Courier, March 11, 1875.

City Council Proceedings.

WINFIELD, February 15, 1875.

The Council met at the usual hour. Present: S. C. Smith, Mayor; H. S. Silver, S. Darrah, J. D. Cochran, R. B. Saffold, Councilmen; J. W. Curns, Clerk.

Moved and carried that a committee of three be appointed to employ an attorney to attend to the suits pending in the District Court in which the city is a party, and that the committee be authorized to fix the compensation for such services. Messrs. Saffold, Darrah, and Cochran were appointed on said committee.

[DISTRICT COURT DOCKET: MARCH TERM.]

Winfield Courier, March 18, 1875.

District Court Docket.

The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the March term, A. D., 1875, of the District Court of Cowley County, to be holden on and from the 22nd day, and have been placed on the Trial Docket in the following order.

FIRST DAY—CRIMINAL DOCKET.

State of Kansas versus—

Thomas T. Rucker.

Elmer Kinne.

Elmer Kinne.

Elmer Kinne.

Willoughby Nugent.

Will. M. Allison.

Charles Snow.

L. Lippmann.

Charles W. Saunders.

Henry Mowry.

A. D. Lee.

Jas. A. Brake.

J. W. Shidler.

Jasper Hartsock.

SECOND DAY—CIVIL DOCKET.

No. 164. Zimri Stubbs, vs. Samuel Jay, et al.

No. 168. John C. Smith, vs. Samuel P. Berryman.

No. 209. Clifton M. Wood, vs. John W. Millspaugh.

No. 273. James Headley, vs. Brainard Goff.

No. 335. Emerson & Co., vs. Nelson C. Clark.

No. 347. Earnest Wadcock, vs. Christian Kemry.

No. 353. A. Sumner, vs. John R. Davis.

No. 357. Ottman & King, vs. Thos. H. Crone.

No. 371. John Swain, vs. Seymour Tarrant.

No. 380. Robert B. Finney, vs. Alexander Dixon, et al.

No. 381. Able D. Bent, vs. Alonzo F. Tryon.

No. 392. E. S. Babcock, Jr., vs. Sylvanus Pehlan, et al.

No. 393. Soranus S. Brettun, vs. Edward Fredrick, et al.

No. 394. Mark Phillips, vs. Hannah Phillips.

No. 412. J. C. Musgrove, vs. Laban L. Williams.

No. 413. Allen Carlson, vs. Charles A. Bliss.

No. 416. E. B. Wheitzell, vs. Em. Chase.

THIRD DAY.

No. 417. Farrar, Houghton, et al, vs. Martin Hammond.

No. 418. Wheeler & Wilson, vs. John R. Davis.

No. 421. Margaret Somers, vs. Patrick Somers.

No. 430. John A. Himebaugh, vs. Amos E. Mahaney, et al.

No. 437. Edwin C. Manning, vs. Will. M. Allison.

No. 440. Wm. D. Fredrick, vs. John Jones.

No. 444. Arthur Graham, vs. Ludolphus Holcomb.

No. 445. J. C. Musgrove, vs. James O. Vanorsdall, et al.

No. 446. Ephraim Simpson, vs. George W. Gardenhire.

No. 448. A. V. Polk, vs. R. L. Walker, et al.

No. 452. Lewis C. Strales, vs. Andrew Jackson.

No. 454. Alfred H. Caywood, vs. Sarah Whiteneck.

No. 455. R. L. Walker, vs. David Huston.

No. 456. R. L. Walker, vs. Mary M. Huston.

FOURTH DAY.

No. 464. John B. Lauffer, vs. W. J. Keffer, et al.

No. 465. Diantha T. Thompson, vs. David Thompson.

No. 466. Francis R. Titus, vs. Daniel T. Titus.

No. 467. George Warner, vs. James Jordan.

No. 469. Wyland J. Keffer, vs. Albert A. Newman, et al.

No. 470. Samuel A. Wier, vs. John S. Sprague, et al.

No. 471. Edward J. Hoyt, vs. John Eskin, et al.

No. 472. Nichols, Shepherd & Co., vs. A. D. Lee.

No. 473. Valney Beard, vs. Chas. J. Weeley.

No. 474. S. M. Kline, vs. Benj. G. Sones, et al.

No. 475. M. Brettun, vs. Frank Akers.

No. 476. Emily J. Houston, vs. H. Thompson, et al.

No. 477. John F. Graham, vs. Geo. Black, et al.

No. 478. John Brooks, vs. E. B. Kager.

FIFTH DAY.

No. 480. J. C. Musgrove, vs. Frank Manny.

No. 481. Wyland J. Keffer, vs. Henry C. Mowry, et al.

No. 482. S. C. Smith, vs. Ed. C. Fisk.

No. 483. M. Brettun, vs. Henry Schanghuise.

No. 484. Able D. Bent, vs. S. B. Stone.

No. 485. Benj. G. Jones, et al, vs. A. T. Shenneman.

No. 486. John Beers, vs. R. J. Johnson.

No. 487. Aaron J. Arnett, vs. Udocia Arnett.

No. 488. J. C. Fuller, vs. S. B. Stewart, et al.

No. 489. Sarah Callahan, vs. Thos. Callahan.

No. 490. Frances Black, vs. Edward Patton.

No. 491. Nathan Hughes, vs. Board of County Commissioners.

No. 492. Frances Black, vs. Jesse Stuller.

No. 494. L. I. Pryor, vs. Geo. W. Ballou

No. 495. L. I. Pryor, vs. Geo. W. Ballou.

No. 496. Amy G. Smith, vs. Chas. M. Kellogg, et al.

No. 497. S. C. Smith, vs. J. C. Weathers.

No. 498. Arthur Graham, vs. A. H. Caywood, et al.

No. 499. Hitchcock & Boyle, vs. William Greenlee, et al.

No. 500. Francis Black vs. J. C. Weathers, et al.

No. 501. John C. Hays vs. E. P. Kinne.

No. 502. City of Winfield, vs. A. H. Green.

No. 503. John W. Micklam vs. Thos. H. Turner.

SIXTH DAY.

No. 504. Morgan R. Leonard vs. County Commissioners.

No. 505. State of Kansas vs. E. P. Kinney, et al.

No. 506. J. C. Fuller vs. A. H. Caywood.

No. 507. Francis Black vs. Lucinda Bryant, et al.

No. 508. D. B. McCollum vs. J. R. Smith.

No. 509. R. T. Jordan vs. A. D. Lee, et al.

No. 512. Jonathan Newman vs. L. J. Webb.

No. 513. R. B. Wait vs. E. B. Kager.

No. 514. S. D. Pryor vs. E. B. Kager.

No. 515. S. B. Sherman vs. B. H. Clover.

No. 517. David Thompson vs. E. B. Kager, et al.

No. 518. Samuel Hoyt vs. E. B. Kager, et al.

No. 519. City of Winfield vs. Frank Lutz.

No. 520. City of Winfield vs. Frank Lutz.

E. S. BEDILION, Clerk, District Court.

Winfield Courier, March 25, 1875.

The District Court is in full blast, Hon. W. P. Campbell presiding. The following attorneys are in attendance: Webb & Millington, Hackney & McDonald, E. C. Manning, J. B. Fairbank, Pryor & Kager, T. H. Suits, John E. Allen, A. H. Green, Alexander & Saffold, T. H. Johnson, M. S. Adams of Wichita, C. R. Mitchell and L. B. Kellogg of Arkansas City, James McDermott of Dexter, and A. J. Pyburn, County Attorney.

[DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT CASES.]

Winfield Courier, March 25, 1875.

Disposition of cases in the District Court up to Wednesday night.

State of Kansas Versus—

Thomas T. Rucker, continued.

Elmer Kinne, continued.

Elmer Kinne, continued.

Elmer Kinne, continued.

Willoughby Nugent, continued.

Charles Snow, dismissed.

L. Lippmann, acquitted.

A. D. Lee, dismissed at cost of plaintiff.

Jas. A. Brake, dismissed at cost of plaintiff.

Jasper Hartsock, dismissed.

209. Clifton M. Wood, vs. John W. Millspaugh; continued.

273. James Headley, vs. Brainard Goff, judgment for plaintiff.

357. Ottman & King, vs. Thos H. Crone; judgment for plaintiff.

381. Able D. Bent, vs. Alonzo F. Tryon, continued.

394. Mark Phillips, vs. Hannah Phillips, dismissed.

412. J. C. Musgrove, vs. Laban L. Williams, judgment for plaintiff.

417. Farrar, Houghton, et al, vs. Martin Hammond, judgment for plaintiff.

421. Margaret Somers, vs. Patrick Somers, dismissed.

430. John A. Himebaugh, vs. Amos E. Mahaney, et al, continued.

444. Arthur Graham, vs. Ludolphus Holcomb, dismissed.

445. J. C. Musgrove, vs. James O. Vanorsdall, et al, judgment for plaintiff.

465. Diantha T. Thompson, vs. David Thompson, dismissed at plaintiff’s cost.

475. M. Brettun, vs. Frank Akers, judgment for plaintiff.

477. John F. Graham, vs. Geo. Black, et al, judgment for plaintiff.

480. J. C. Musgrove, vs. Frank Manny, judgment for plaintiff.

482. S. C. Smith, vs. Ed. C. Fisk; judgment for plaintiff.

484. Able D. Bent, vs. S. B. Stone, judgment for plaintiff.

488. J. C. Fuller, vs. S. B. Stewart, et al, judgment for plaintiff.

490. Frances Black, vs. Edward Patton, continued.

492. Frances Black, vs. Jesse Stuller, judgment for plaintiff.

496. Amy G. Smith, vs. Chas M. Kellogg, et al, judgment for plaintiff.

497. S. C. Smith, vs. J. C. Weathers, judgment for plaintiff.

499. Hitchcock & Boyle, vs. William Greenlee, et al, judgment for plaintiff.

500. Francis Black vs. J. C. Weathers, et al., judgment for plaintiff.

503. John W. Micklam vs. Thos. H. Turner, judgment for plaintiff.

505. State of Kansas vs. E. P. Kinne, et al, judgment for plaintiff.

506. J. C. Fuller vs. A. H. Caywood, judgment for plaintiff.

507. Francis Black vs. Lucinda Bryant, et al, judgment for plaintiff.

[NOTICE: FRANK GALLOTTI VS. ORRIN F. HOUGHTON, ADM.]

Winfield Courier, April 1, 1875.

Publication Notice.

STATE OF KANSAS, COWLEY COUNTY.

In the District Court of the 13th Judicial District, in and for Cowley County, State of Kansas.

Frank Gallotti, Plaintiff, vs. Orrin P. Houghton, Administrator of the estate of Lucien W. Emerson, late of Cowley County, Kansas, and the unknown heirs of said Lucien W. Emerson, Defendants.

Recap: Unknown heirs must answer on or before May 15, 1875, etc. Otherwise, property will be conveyed to plaintiff. Lots 10 and 20 in block 12, lot 8 in block 34, lot 24 in block 64, lot 7 in block 31, and lots 17 and 18 in block 155 in Arkansas City.

E. S. BEDILION, Clerk Dist. Court.

Pryor & Kager, Plaintiff’s Attorneys.

Winfield Courier, April 15, 1875.

Sheriff Walker has gone to Leavenworth with the darkey who was convicted of stealing, at the recent term of our district court. He was also accompanied by Mr. C. P. Spalding, of Tisdale, who is wanted for something or other by the U. S. court now in session at Topeka.

Winfield Courier, July 22, 1875.

RECAP: PLAINTIFF, DAVID RODOCKER, SUES MARY L. RODOCKER, INFORMING HER SHE MUST ANSWER ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 6, 1875, IN ANSWER TO HIS PETITION; AND IF HIS PETITION IS TAKEN AS TRUE, MARRIAGE RELATIONS NOW EXISTING BETWEEN THEM WILL BE SET ASIDE AND HELD FOR NAUGHT, AND SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO, WILL BE RENDERED ACCORDINGLY.

E. S. BEDILION, Clerk of District Court.

Pryor & Kager, Plaintiff’s Attorneys.

Winfield Courier, August 12, 1875.

Will S. Paul, with his tooth-brush and collar box, arrived at the Lagonda Saturday evening, looking as “natural as life.” He comes down to attend to business intimately connected with thirty-six percent mortgages, Register of Deeds office, and the District Court. Be careful, young man, that some young lady don’t foreclose a long-time mortgage on you.

[COWLEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT.]

Winfield Courier, September 16, 1875.

Cowley County District Court.

The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the September term of the District Court, to be holden on and from the 27th, and have been placed on the Trial Docket in the following order.

CRIMINAL DOCKET.

FIRST DAY.

STATE OF KANSAS VERSUS—

Thomas T. Rucker.

Elmer Kinney.

Elmer Kinney.

Elmer Kinney.

Willoughby Neugent.

Will M. Allison.

William Turpin.

Andrew Horneman.

CIVIL DOCKET.

SECOND DAY.

John C. Smith vs. Samuel P. Berryman.

Clifton M. Woods vs. John W. Millspaugh.

A. Sumner vs. John R. Davis.

John Swain vs. Seymour Tarrant.

Abel D. Bent vs. Alonzo F. Tryon, et al.

E. S. Babcock vs. Sylvanus Phelan, et al.

Soranus S. Brettun vs. Edward Frederick.

John A. Himebaugh vs. Amos E. Mahaney.

Edwin C. Manning vs. Will. M. Allison.

Ephraine Simpson vs. Geo. W. Gardenhire.

George Warner vs. James Jordan.

Samuel A. Wier vs. John J. Sprague, et al.

M. Brettun vs. Henry Shanhuies.

Beng. J. Jones vs. A. T. Shenneman.

Francis Black vs. Edward Patton.

Amy G. Smith vs. Charles M. Kellogg.

S. C. Smith vs. James C. Weathers.

John C. Hays vs. Ezra P. Kinne.

D. B. McCallum vs. John R. Smith.

Apolis Kimble vs. Enos Copple.

THIRD DAY.

George W. Kimble vs. Enos Copple.

Rufus B. Waite vs. E. B. Kager, Co. Treasurer.

S. D. Pryor vs. E. B. Kager, Co. Treasurer.

S. B. Sherman vs. B. H. Clover, Administrator.

David Thompson vs. E. B. Kager, et al.

Esther E. Fowler vs. John Brown, et al.

Samuel Hoyt vs. E. B. Kager, et al.

Edward B. Weitzel vs. Joseph Smalley.

Robert Hudson vs. W. S. Voris.

Frank Gallotti vs. Orrin P. Houghton, Administrator.

Houghton & McLaughlin vs. Robt. Washam.

Azinia V. Polk vs. A. J. McCollum.

Mollie H. Maule vs. Samuel Maule.

John S. Foster vs. Enoch G. Willett.

Fred E. Waldron vs. J. M. Dever, et al.

John C. McMullen vs. Richard Woolsey.

A. R. Depen vs. George A. Bridge, et al.

Harvey Olmstead vs. John Schwarts.

R. A. Ketner vs. Allen Mowry.

FOURTH DAY.

Solomon Nawman vs. Amos Becker.

S. D. Pryor vs. Ebenezer J. Gamble.

Oliver Sparkman vs. Wm. & A. J. Thurman.

T. A. Wilkinson vs. John Garahee.

Hannah Marquis vs. Richard B. Corson.

Martha E. Quimby, Adx. vs. J. B. Gorham.

City of Winfield vs. Seymour Tarrant.

A. W. Graham vs. A. N. & Julia A. Deming.

S. S. Richmond & Bro. vs. Davis & Ferguson.

John C. McMullen vs. Wm. M. Gray, et al.

Robert Allison vs. Richard L. Walker.

W. S. Paul vs. Martin Hammond.

M. Brettun vs. James K. McClellen.

M. Brettun vs. John C. Quarles, et al.

Francis Black vs. Joseph D. Wilson, et al.

Francis Black vs. George T. Galbreth, et al.

Elizabeth Sutton vs. B. H. Clover, Administrator.

Andrew J. Kummel vs. Wm. & Anna Thompson.

Joseph Likowsky vs. Andrew Dehn.

Francis Black vs. Edward Patton, et al.

FIFTH DAY.

Lizzie M. Martin vs. Fritz Budde.

W. S. Paul vs. Maria & W. W. Andrews.

C. C. Harris vs. Martha A. South, et al.

Martha A. Richmond vs. Chas. W. Richmond.

Oliver S. Williams vs. Richard L. Walker.

Samuel Bliss vs. A. H. Broadwell, et al.

John Headrick vs. heirs of James P. Jenkins.

Pryor & Kager vs. T. L. Clark.

E. A. Graham vs. Sidney Belk.

E. C. Seward vs. Andrew Dehn.

David Rodocker vs. Mary S. Rodocker.

David Rodocker vs. Thaddeus A. Rice.

H. F. Bartine vs. Needham Rogers.

S. H. Myton vs. Wm. W. and M. A. Andrews.

Robert T. Jordan vs. T. M. McFadden, et al.

E. A. Graham vs. Edward Millard.

T. M. Graham vs. M. A. & W. W. Andrews.

Robert T. Jordan vs. Josiah Hager.

M. Brettun vs. Thomas J. Anderson.

Charles C. Black vs. A. A. Jackson, et al.

SIXTH DAY.

M. Brettun vs. Alonzo F. Tryon, et al.

Francis Black vs. Addison A. Jackson, Administrator.

Francis Black vs. David M. Osborn, et al.

M. Brettun vs. John Smith, et al.

William W. Curtiss vs. Sarah A. Curtiss.

Trustees of Bolton & Creswell townships vs. Wm. C. Boker, et al.

Leland J. Webb vs. Thompson H. Johnson.

Samuel Hoyt vs. Alphonso O. Hoyt, et al.

Desier A. Clapp vs. Salem Lance, et al.

Francis Black vs. Warren H. Beck, et al.

Francis Black vs. Leland J. Webb, et al.

James H. Spradlin vs. D. B. Fouts, et al.

Alfred S. Redden vs. Wm. Thurman.

E. A. Graham vs. Wm. P. Duncan.

Frank Akers vs. Wm. B. Norman.

Frank Akers vs. Frank Manny.

Abel D. Bent vs. James A. Barr, et al.

Arthur Graham vs. Thomas J. Ragland.

James M. Barrick vs. Enoch G. Willett.

W. G. Graham vs. Andrew Dehn.

Robert T. Jordan vs. John H. Brown, et al.

Andrew H. Horneman vs. Enoch G. Willett.

E. S. BEDILION, Clerk.

Winfield Courier, October 14, 1875.

C. M. Scott is at Leavenworth as a grand juror at the present term of the United States District Court.