COWLEY
COUNTY DISTRICT COURT.
Years
Covered: 1876, 1877, 1878.
PUBLICATION
NOTICE OF SUIT BY ALBERT A. NEWMAN.]
Arkansas City Traveler, January 26, 1876.
RECAP: Albert A. Newman, plaintiff, vs. Edwin L. Chesney and Lewis H. Gardner, defendants. Sum: $1,096.35. Order for the sale of lots one and two and the south half of the northeast quarter of section two in township thirty-four south of range three east, in Cowley County, to satisfy said judgment, attorney’s fees, taxes, and costs, according to the three promissory notes and the mortgage given by Edwin L. Chesney to Lewis H. Gardner.
E. S.
BEDILION, Clerk of the District Court.
Winfield Courier, February 3, 1876.
The new 13th Judicial District Court term bill will operate bad. Court sets in Cowley the first Monday of April and October, leaving the Sumner court to set the Monday of the next week in each month. The business of the Cowley County court cannot be done in one week.
LATER. Since the above was put in type, we see by the bill that the Sumner County court begins the third Monday of April and October.
Winfield Courier, February 10, 1876.
Eight divorce cases pending in the next term of the District Court in this county.
[COMMUNICATION
FROM “OBSERVER” TO TRAVELER.]
Arkansas City Traveler, February 16, 1876. Front Page.
To the property owners and people of Cowley County, and more especially the Board of Commissioners. I wish to call your attention to a fact that many of you are aware of: the condition of your county records. A stranger visiting your courthouse at Winfield would be astonished, as I was, to find neither safe nor vault in the building.
Enter the Recorder’s office: there lies in an old wooden desk, without doors, the only evidence of your title to and ownership of your farms, houses, stores, and other possessions.
Adjoining is the office of your County Treasurer, where all your taxes are paid in, and where the records of them are kept.
In case of a fire occurring about Christmas time, where would you be after your money was paid in and the records destroyed? Passing along, you come to the County Clerk’s office, where all evidences of the indebtedness of your county and its finances are recorded.
Next you come to the Probate Judge’s office, where are recorded the wills of your deceased friends; the appointment and proceedings between guardians and minors, children that are unable to take care of themselves or their property; the records of your marriage, and all your dearest rights.
Cross the hall, and there you find the office of the Clerk of the District Court, where are recorded all the judgments between you and your neighbor, between the State, the public against the violators of law, and disturbers of the peace, and all other judicial proceedings.
All these valuable records in these five offices are liable to be destroyed at any moment by the bursting of a lamp; the falling of a stove; or that convenient and ever occurring event, a defective flue; or by the malice of some evil disposed person, who may wish to gratify some petty revenge, or destroy some record that may be obnoxious to him or his friends, in any of the five offices above mentioned.
Let not another month pass without something being done to protect these records from fire or other means of injury. Don’t whine and talk about the expense, and the increase of your taxes. Just stop and think what is at stake: what the records of these offices are worth to the county. . . .
[Writer recommends a vault over a safe as the vault would be cheaper.]
[LEGISLATIVE
SUMMARY.]
Arkansas City Traveler, February 16, 1876.
The Senate last Friday defeated all of the propositions for amending the constitution except one providing for appropriations to be made for two years, which passed.
An effort was made to put the apportionment bill at the head of the calendar, but it failed.
A long debate was had on a bill requiring school money raised from taxes on railroads in counties that had voted subsidies to be divided among the several districts in the county, and it was finally referred to a special committee to perfect.
A bill to increase the fees of clerks of district courts was discussed and defeated.
A bill was introduced to reduce the number of trustees of the deaf and dumb, the blind and insane asylums, from eighteen to three. . . . Commonwealth.
[DISTRICT COURT DOCKET.]
Winfield Courier, March 23, 1876.
District Court Docket.
The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the April term A. D. 1876, of the District Court of Cowley, and have been placed on the Trial Docket in the following order.
FIRST DAY—CRIMINAL DOCKET.
STATE VERSUS
A. H. Horneman [listed three times].
Enos Copple.
Wm. Thurman.
W. J. Keffer and Emma J. Hawkins.
J. L. Melvin.
John Doe.
SECOND DAY—CIVIL DOCKET.
E. S. Babcock, Jr., vs. S. Phelan et al.
Edwin C. Manning vs. Will M. Allison.
Eph Simpson vs. Geo. W. Gardenhire.
Geo. Warner vs. James Jordon.
Benj. G. Jones et al vs. A. T. Shenneman.
Jno. C. Hays vs. E. P. Kinne.
S. B. Sherman vs. B. H. Clover, Adm’r.
Esther E. Fowler vs. John Brown et al.
David Thompson vs. E. B. Kager et al.
E. B. Weitzel vs. Joseph Smalley.
Robert Hudson vs. W. S. Voris.
A. V. Polk vs. A. J. McCollum.
Oliver Sparkman vs. Wm. and A. S. Thurman.
Harvey Olmstead vs. John Schwartes.
City of Winfield vs. S. Tarrant.
Jno. C. McMullen vs. Wm. M. Gray.
Elizabeth Sutton vs. B. H. Clover, Adm’r.
A. J. Kimmell vs. David Thompson, et al.
Francis Black vs. Ed Patton et al.
THIRD DAY.
W. S. Pane vs. M. A. and W. W. Andrews.
Martha A. Richmond vs. Chas. W. Richmond.
Robert Jordon vs. T. M. McFadden et al.
C. C. Black vs. A. A. Jackson et al.
Francis Black vs. A. A. Jackson, Adm’r.
Frank Akers vs. W. B. Norman.
Frank Akers vs. Frank Manny.
Arthur Graham vs. T. J. Ragland.
Robert T. Jordan vs. John H. Brown et al.
M. Brettun vs. A. F. Tryon et al.
R. C. Seehorn vs. H. Brotherton.
T. H. Pryor vs. John N. Dunn et al.
Herman Godehard vs. Thos. Callahan et al.
Todd & Royal vs. Chas. Keesler.
Michael Harkins vs. Geo. Sweet et al.
J. D. Bosworth vs. Willis Hunt.
A. V. Polk vs. A. H. Horneman.
Philander Wilson vs. Board County Commissioners.
W. S. Cottingham vs. School District 19.
FOURTH DAY.
Henry T. Ford vs. N. Roberson.
T. M. Graham vs. Thos Bell et al.
Abel D. Bent vs. G. M. Rose et al.
R. B. Waite vs. John Morris et al.
Nancy Constant vs. K. J. Wright et al.
Susannah Holmes vs. T. H. Johnson.
J. M. Harcourt vs. T. H. Johnson.
J. G. Ackerson vs. H. J. Page.
W. J. Keffer vs. Emma A. Keffer.
Emma J. Hawkins vs. E. C. Hawkins.
W. R. Constant vs. H. H. Constant et al.
Stillwell & Bierce Mfg. Co. vs. J. C. Blandin et al.
Mary Estes vs. Noah B. Estes.
L. G. Cutting vs. Celia Davis et al.
John Worthington vs. W. R. Lewis.
F. M. Crosby vs. A. N. Deming.
T. J. A. Flaws vs. Geo. Bauer.
A. A. Newman vs. E. L. Chesney et al.
Ella Elton vs. J. C. Elton.
John Mentch, Adm’r. vs. T. H. Johnson.
FIFTH DAY.
Sarah Requa vs. Joseph Requa.
Joseph Requa vs. Joseph Nickles.
J. C. McMullen vs. Julia A. & A. N. Deming.
Brettun Crapster vs. S. D. Williams.
E. C. Seward vs. S. Tucker et al.
J. C. Blandin vs. S. A. Smith et al.
Joseph Requa vs. Jacob Bihlwater et al.
Joseph Requa vs. J. W. Thomas et al.
Sarah Brown vs. Peter Pixler et al.
T. F. Kirkley vs. Wm. Hallit et al.
J. J. Smith vs. Sarah E. Smith.
Arthur Graham vs. John Swain et al.
Mary J. Triplett vs. W. B. Doty et al.
Bolton & Creswell Townships vs. M. C. Baker et al.
Adaline Jackson vs. L. C. Shales et al.
N. F. Bartine vs. C. Akers et al.
John Rief vs. Gertrude Rief.
R. B. Waite vs. C. M. Sloan et al.
W. H. H. Maris vs. D. M. Purdy et al.
SIXTH DAY.
L. C. Norton vs. Geo. O. Sweet et al.
A. J. Ady vs. S. A. Ady.
Barclay Hockett vs. R. R. Turner.
Elizabeth Kemry vs. V. B. Tillson.
J. B. Splawn vs. R. L. Walker, Sheriff.
W. B. Turner vs. R. L. Walker, Sheriff.
J. W. Martin vs. Wm. & H. H. Martin.
J. W. Martin vs. Wm. Martin et al.
Samuel Hoyt vs. S. L. Fetterman.
S. L. Brettun vs. A. P. Forbes et al.
A. B. Johnson vs. C. T. Stewart.
David Thomas vs. Martin Stewart.
James Jenkins vs. A. N. Deming.
S. L. Brettun vs. Geo. D. Oaks et al.
W. S. Voris et al vs. C. T. Stewart.
E. S. BEDILION, Clerk.
Cowley County Democrat, Thursday, April 6, 1876.
The district court opened on Monday; Judge Campbell on the bench. Attorneys present: A. J. McDonald of Wellington; C. R. Mitchell and James Christian of Arkansas City; James McDermott of Dexter; Mr. Ruggles of Wichita; Byron Sherry of Leavenworth; J. M. Alexander, A. H. Green, L. J. Webb, D. A. Millington, A. J. Pyburn, T. H. Suits, W. P. Hackney, E. C. Manning, John Allen, Wm. Boyer, S. D. Pryor, W. M. Boyer, and Amos Walton of Winfield.
[DISTRICT
COURT.]
Arkansas City Traveler, March 15, 1876.
The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the April term A. D. 1876, of the District Court of Cowley, and have been placed on the Trial Docket in the following order.
FIRST DAY—CRIMINAL DOCKET.
State vs. A. H. Horneman [listed 3 times].
State vs. Enos Copple.
State vs. Wm. Thurman.
State vs. W. J. Keffer and Emma J. Hawkins.
State vs. J. L. Melvin.
State vs. John Doe.
SECOND DAY—CIVIL DOCKET.
E. S. Babcock Jr. vs. S. Phelan et al.
Edwin C. Manning vs. Will M. Allison.
Eph. Simpson vs. Geo. W. Gardenhire.
Geo. Warner vs. James Jordan.
Benj. G. Jones et al vs. A. T. Shenneman.
Jno. C. Hays vs. E. P. Kinne.
S. B. Sherman vs. B. H. Clover Adr.
Esther E. Fowler vs. John Brown et al.
David Thompson vs. E. B. Kager et al.
E. B. Weitzel vs. Joseph Smalley.
Robert Hudson vs. W. S. Voris.
A. V. Polk vs. A. J. McCollim.
Oliver Sparkman vs. Wm. and A. J. Thurman.
Harvey Olmstead vs. John Schwartes.
City of Winfield vs. S. Tarrant.
Jno. C. McMullen vs. Wm. M. Gray.
Elizabeth Sutton vs. B. H. Clover Adr.
A. J. Kimmell vs. David Thompson et al.
Francis Black vs. Ed Patton et al.
THIRD DAY.
W. S. Pane vs. M. A. and W. W. Andrews.
Martha A. Richmond vs. Chas. W. Richmond.
Robert Jordan vs. T. M. McFadden et al.
C. C. Black vs. A. A. Jackson et al.
Francis Black vs. A. A. Jackson Adr.
Frank Akers vs. W. B. Norman
Frank Akers vs. Frank Manny.
Arthur Graham vs. T. J. Ragland.
Robert T. Jordan vs. John H. Brown et al.
M. Bretton vs. A. F. Tryon et al.
R. C. Seehorn vs. H. Brotherton.
T. H. Pryor vs. John N. Dunn et al.
Herman Godehard vs. Thos. Callahan et al.
Todd & Royal vs. Chas. Keesler.
Michael Harkins vs. Geo. Sweet et al.
Patrick Harkins vs. Geo. O. Sweet et al.
J. D. Bosworth vs. Willis Hunt.
A. V. Polk vs. A. H. Horneman.
Philander Wilson vs. Board County Commissioners.
W. S. Cottingham vs. School District 19.
FOURTH DAY.
Henry T. Ford vs. N. Roberson.
T. M. Graham vs. Thos Bell et al.
Abel D. Bent vs. G. M. Rouse et al.
R. B. Waite vs. John Morris et al.
Nancy Constant vs. K. J. Wright et al.
Susannah Holmes vs. T. H. Johnson.
J. M. Harcourt vs. T. H. Johnson.
J. G. Ackerson vs. H. J. Page.
W. J. Keffer vs. Emma A. Keffer.
Emma J. Hawkins vs. E. C. Hakins.
W. R. Constant vs. H. H. Constant et al.
Stillwell & Bierce Mfg. Co. vs. J. C. Blanein et al.
Mary Estes vs. Noah B. Estes.
L. G. Culling vs. Celia Davis et al.
John Worthington vs. W. R. Lewis.
F. M. Crosby vs. A. N. Deming.
T. J. A. Flows vs. Geo. Bauer.
A. A. Newman vs. E. L. Chesney et al.
Ella Elton vs. J. C. Elton.
John Mentch Adr. vs. T. H. Johnson.
FIFTH DAY.
Sarah Requa vs. Joseph Requa.
Joseph Requa vs. Joseph Nickles.
J. C. McMullen vs. Julia A. and A. N. Deming.
Brettun Crapster vs. S. D. Williams.
E. C. Seward vs. S. Tucker et al.
J. C. Blandin vs. S. A. Smith et al.
Joseph Requa vs. Jacob Bihlwaier et al.
Joseph Requa vs. J. W. Thomas et al.
Sarah Brown vs. Peter Pixler et al.
T. E. Kirkley vs. Wm. Hallitt et al.
J. J. Smith vs. Sarah E. Smith.
Arthur Graham vs. John Swain et al.
Mary J. Triplett vs. W. B. Doty et al.
Bolton & Creswell Tps. vs. M. C. Baker et al.
Adaline Sackson vs. L. C. Shales et al.
N. F. Bartine vs. C. Akers et al.
J. D. Pryor vs. L. M. Brown et al.
John Rief vs. Gertrude Rief.
R. B. Waite vs. C. M. Sloan et al.
W. H. H. Maris vs. D. M. Purdy et al.
SIXTH DAY.
L. C. Norton vs. Geo. O. Sweet et al.
A. J. Ady vs. S. A. Ady.
Barclay Hockett vs. R. R. Turner.
Elizabeth Kemry vs. V. B. Tillson.
J. B. Splawn vs. R. L. Walker, Sheriff.
W. B. Turner vs. R. L. Walker, Sheriff.
J. W. Martin vs. Wm. & H. H. Martin.
J. W. Martin vs. Wm. Martin et al.
Samuel Hoyt vs. S. L. Fetterman.
S. L. Brettun vs. A. P. Forbes et al.
A. B. Johnson vs. C. T. Stewart.
David Thomas vs. Martin Stewart.
James Jenkins vs. A. N. Deming.
S. L. Brettun vs. Geo. D. Oaks et al.
W. S. Voris et al vs. C. T. Stewart.
E. S. BEDILION, CLERK.
[JURORS—APRIL
TERM OF DISTRICT COURT.]
Arkansas City Traveler, March 22, 1876.
The following is a list of jurors drawn for the April term of court: George W. Sharp, H. Holtby, W. W. Higgins, B. F. Wright, Isaac Towsley, James Kerr, A. H. Buckwalter, S. D. Groom, John Jones, J. A. McNown, Charles M. Peters, O. M. Ratts.
[ATTORNEYS IN ATTENDANCE AT DISTRICT COURT.]
Arkansas City Traveler, April 19, 1876. Front Page.
There were in attendance upon the District Court in this County, the following named attorneys.
General Sherry, of Leavenworth.
Judge Adams and Major Ruggles, of Wichita.
Judge Christian, C. R. Mitchell, and E. B. Kager, of Arkansas City.
Prof. Kellogg, of Emporia.
Capt. McDermott, of Dexter.
Judge McDonald, of Wellington.
Messrs. Pryor & Pryor, Allen, Boyer, Pyburn, Webb, Millington, Hackney, and Alexander, of Winfield.
Winfield Courier, April 20, 1876.
Eight married couples were made sixteen single persons at the last sitting of the district court.
BALLOU
VERSUS WAIT.]
Winfield Courier, Thursday, July 6, 1876. Front Page.
Ballou
vs. Wait.
In the District Court of Cowley County, State of Kansas.
George W. Ballou, against Rufus B. Wait.
Motion at Chambers to dissolve temporary injunction.
Opinion of the court. Campbell, District Judge.
This action was commenced June 7th, 1876.
A temporary injunction was ordered by the Probate Judge June 8th. On the next day, June 9th, the defendant filed a demurrer to the petition, and on the 13th the plaintiff filed an amended petition and procured of the Probate Judge a second order of injunction. There are two bonds on file, each in the sum of $1,000.
The defendant now moves to dissolve each of these injunctions, on the grounds that neither the petition nor the amended petition states sufficient facts, and that the facts stated are untrue.
Some technical objections are interposed to the amended petition which it is unnecessary to mention.
It is also claimed by the defendant that the second injunction should be dissolved because the first was in force at the time it was issued. This may be correct as a proposition of law, but in the case the amended petition would refer to the first injunction. The question recurs on its merits whether the facts stated in the amended petition are true; and, secondly, if true whether they warrant an injunction.
This court will not at this time pretend to decide finally the question as to the truth or falsity of the amended petition. It is sworn to and constitutes the only evidence on the part of the plaintiff. The defendant filed sworn affidavits and exhibits, and there is an apparent conflict in the testimony. But as the bond filed by the plaintiff affords an ample security to the defendant, I prefer to reserve the disputed questions of fact to be determined at the final trial of the case. This has been invariably the practice of the court.
The following are substantially the facts stated concisely, as claimed by the plaintiff:
The defendant, Wait, loaned the plaintiff, Ballou, August 21st, 1873, $971.25, and September 23rd following, the further sum of $642.75, and took notes secured by mortgage, bearing interest from date at the rate of 12 percent per annum; one for the sum of $1,214.30, and another, for $800.00; both due one year after date. The $800 note was transferred to the defendant’s daughter, who brought suit upon the note and obtained judgment. September 15th, 1874, another note was executed by the plaintiff to the defendant for $582.85, due one year after date, with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from date. This note was given for usurious interest on the two first mentioned notes. This note was sued upon and judgment obtained by the defendant’s daughter. Upon all this indebtedness the plaintiff claims that he has paid to the defendant the sum of $2,361 in cash, and has in addition executed to him two several notes, now past due; one for $1,120.00, secured by mortgage on real estate and personal property, and the other for $280, secured by mortgage and personal property. Suit has been commenced upon these last mentioned notes, and the defendant is proceeding to sell the personal property under the mortgage and apply the proceeds to the payment of said notes.
The temporary injunction restrains the sale of this property, and also restrains the defendant from prosecuting his action on said notes. This action is pending in this court and in so far as the injunction restrains its prosecution, the court will disregard it. The motion to dissolve the injunction will be overruled. If, as the plaintiff claims, these notes were given for no other consideration than that of usurious interest, there can be no recovery on them. If this proposition is correct, the defendant should not be allowed to sell the mortgaged property. If he should sell it, the plaintiff is without remedy, except to bring an action for the recovery of the price received by the defendant at the sale. This might be very inadequate. Having authorized the sale in writing, he cannot sue for trespass or wrongful conversion. I hold that a note given for usury only is without consideration, and that a chattle mortgage given to secure such note, in the hands of the payee, is void.
Excerpts from City Council meeting, Winfield.
Winfield Courier, July 6, 1876.
City Council Proceedings.
WINFIELD, KAN., July 3, 1876.
City Council met in regular session at the Clerk’s office, July 3rd, 1876.
Present: M. G. Troup, President of Council; T. B. Myers, C. A. Bliss, A. B. Lemmon, Councilmen; J. E. Allen, City Attorney; B. F. Baldwin, City Clerk.
Bill of E. S. Bedilion, Clerk of District Court, for $3,00, fee bill, city of Winfield vs. S. Tarrant, was read and referred to finance committee.
Winfield Courier, August 10, 1876.
City
Council Proceedings.
WINFIELD,
KANSAS, Aug. 7, 1876.
City Council met in regular session at the Clerk’s office, Aug. 7th, 1876.
Present: D. A. Millington, Mayor; H. Brotherton, T. B. Myers, and M. G. Troup, Councilmen; J. E. Allen, City Attorney; B. F. Baldwin, City Clerk.
Minutes of previous meeting read and approved.
Bill of E. S. Bedilion, Clerk of District Court, $3.00, fees in case of city of Winfield versus S. Tarrant, that was referred to finance committee at last meeting, was reported favorably, and on motion was ordered paid.
Winfield Courier, September 21, 1876. Editorial Page.
THE
COUNTY TICKET.
Ed. S. Bedilion, the present incumbent, was renominated by acclamation for the office of CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT. Since occupying that position he has attended strictly to its duties, and his records are full and complete, without blur or blemish. He is competent, worthy, and industrious, and he brings to the office rectitude of purpose and first-class abilities. He will sweep the county by an unprecedented majority.
[COURT
DOCKET: OCTOBER TERM.]
Arkansas City Traveler, September 27, 1876.
The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the October term, A. D., 1876, of the District Court, and have been placed on the trial docket in the following order.
CRIMINAL DOCKET.
State vs. A. H. Horneman.
State vs. W. J. Keffer et al.
State vs. J. S. Meloin.
State vs. Will M. Allison.
State vs. Emily J. Wilson.
CIVIL DOCKET.
N. K. Jeffries vs. M. S. Read.
George Warner vs. James Jordan.
Robert Hudson vs. W. S. Voris.
Oliver Sparkman vs. Wm. Thurman.
Francis Black vs. Ed Patton et al.
W. S. Paul vs. M. A. Andrews et al.
Francis Black vs. A. A. Jackson, ad’r.
H. T. Ford vs. N. Roberson.
R. B. Waite vs. John Morris et al.
W. R. Constant vs. H. H. Constant.
Stillwell & Bierce Mfg. Co. vs. J. C. Blandin et al.
Brettun Crapster vs. S. D. Williams.
E. E. Kirkly vs. Wm. Hallett.
Arthur Graham vs. John Swain et al.
H. F. Bartine vs. C. A. Kerrs et al.
John Rief vs. Gertrude Rief.
W. H. H. Maris vs. W. D. Purdy et al.
L. C. Norton vs. G. O. Sweet et al.
Barclay Hackett vs. R. R. Turner.
David Thomas vs. Martin Stewart.
M. S. Read vs. E. G. Willett et al.
Cowley Co. Bank vs. T. M. Carder et al.
F. R. Hudson vs. Robert Hudson.
Frazee Bros. vs. C. H. Kingsbury.
A. Covert et al vs. R. B. Waite et al.
David Rodocker vs. James Jordan et al.
F. Weathermire vs. Joseph Likowsky.
G. S. Manser vs. E. G. Willett.
Wm. Shivaly vs. H. M. Rogers.
H. T. Ford vs. James Ford.
Sophia Laubner vs. Peter Theis.
Emma J. Hawkins vs. Wm. Hawkins.
C. C. Black Adr. vs. D. D. Whisuant.
W. A. Sharp vs. R. L. Walker.
George Carman vs. W. H. Nelson.
M. E. Quimby vs. J. B. Gorham.
A. W. Graham vs. H. O. Meigs et al.
S. A. Groswold vs. L. F. Griswold.
A. A. Newman vs. Jno. P. Woodyard.
G. W. Ballou vs. R. B. Waite.
B. D. French vs. R. L. Walker.
R. B. Waite vs. G. W. Ballou.
M. T. Jackson vs. Jas. H. Jackson.
Dietz & Rov_nd vs. E. W. Coulson.
B. D. French vs. R. L. Walker.
R. G. Thompson vs. S. J. Thompson.
R. B. Waite vs. F. R. Hudson.
Frank Gallotti vs. Amelia Gallotti.
City of Winfield vs. Wm. Hersman.
J. S. Hilderbrand et al vs. John B. Holmes.
Nelson Gunsaullis vs. Mary Gunsaullis.
W. B. Skinner vs. W. G. Kay et al.
J. L. Farwell vs. Robert Hersbrough.
R. E. Gault vs. F. P. Smith.
R. E. Gault vs. T. P. Smith.
Samuel Hoyt vs. W. H. Brown et al.
Annie E. Brown vs. J. D. Brown.
G. P. Harris vs. F. W. Ward et al.
M. A. Baker vs. P. D. Baker.
D. H. Cross vs. N. J. Cross.
E. J. Kenton vs. Harvey Kenton.
Robert Hudson vs. F. R. Hudson.
J. C. Hix vs. Nancy J. Stewart.
J. C. Hix vs. Jas. Stewart et al.
E. S. Torrance vs. S. W. Green et al.
Samuel Hoyt vs. Frank Gallotti.
Samuel Hoyt vs. Geo. Jones et al.
Charles Fiske et al vs. J. J. Johnson.
William R. Warner vs. M. G. Troup Adr et al.
E. S. BEDILION, CLERK.
Winfield Courier, October 5, 1876.
Prof. L. B. Kellogg, of Emporia, who is quite well known in this county, having lived here four years, is in attendance on the district court. The Prof. has been nominated by the Republicans of the Emporia district for the honorable position of Representative. He will be elected by a strong majority as he is well liked wherever he is known. The Normal school interests will not suffer with such men to guard them.
Winfield Courier, October 5, 1876.
The following attorneys are in attendance at the present term of court: M. S. Adams, of Wichita; L. B. Kellogg, of Emporia; C. R. Mitchell, A. Walton, and James Christian, of Arkansas City; James McDermott, Dexter; Webb & Torrance, Hackney & McDonald, Pyburn & Seward, D. A. Millington, J. M. Alexander, Jennings & Buckman, A. H. Green,
Pryor, Kager & Pryor, A. B. Lemmon, and John E. Allen, of Winfield.
[COURT SCENE: GUNSAULIS VERSUS GUNSAULIS.]
Winfield Courier, October 5, 1876.
Court
Scene.
In the divorce case of Gunsaulis vs. Gunsaulis on Tuesday, in the district court, an old lady was sworn as a witness for the defense, who was very deaf, and wore on her head a mammoth sun-bonnet. Clerk Bedilion felt impressed with the correct idea that he must speak loud, so putting his head away under the roof, he yelled, “You do swear that the evidence which you shall give in the case now on trial shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?” “God!” said the old lady, innocently, “what about Him?” A look of despair seemed to creep over the visage of our clerk, but he tried it again. Away went his head for the second time under that fearful cover, until his nose must have touched her ear, and he screeched, “You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give in the case now on trial shall be er truth, a whole truth, and nothin’ but yer truth, selp yer God?” “Truth!” exclaimed the ancient dame, “yes, it is all true, every word of it.” Bedilion sank into his chair exhausted and melancholy, while the audience roared, and his Honor, Judge Campbell, bowed his head and shook like the ague—or something else.
Winfield Courier, November 9, 1876.
Ed. Bedilion’s name appeared on the Republican tickets in two places, as candidate for Clerk District Court, and Clerk of Winfield Township. Several demagogues deceived voters by telling them that it was through a mistake and persuaded them to erase his name in the county ticket and place in its stead that of his opponent, Mr. Houx. Ed. lost several votes by this infamous trick, and yet these fellows have sore throats from the efforts of shouting “reform.”
Winfield Courier, December 7, 1876.
The Commonwealth is probably mistaken about there being “an organization in Butler and perhaps adjoining counties numbering 13,000 members, the purpose of which is to keep others from filing on their claims in the Osage diminished reserve. It is certainly mistaken if the impression conveyed includes Cowley County. It further says: The probability that eleven of the organization had been arrested is made the occasion of giving the secret of the organization to the public. They are indicted and will be tried in the U. S. district court next April under the Ku Klux act.
Arkansas City Traveler, March 21, 1877.
DISTRICT COURT convenes on Monday, May 7tth. Wm. P. Campbell, Judge of District.
Winfield Courier, April 19, 1877.
The following is a list of jurors drawn for the May term of District Court in Cowley County. Court convenes May 7th.
M. N. Chafee, Winfield Township.
H. S. Silver, Winfield.
Daniel Grant, Silverdale.
L. B. Goodrich, Nennescah.
A. H. Smith, Cedar.
A. D. Lee, J. W. Meador, and Henry Baily, Rock.
P. B. Pack, Sheridan.
E. A. Hawthorn, Omnia.
A. S. Williams, Vernon.
N. E. Haight, Bolton.
[COWLEY COUNTY TRIAL DOCKET.]
Arkansas City Traveler, May 9, 1877. Front Page.
The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the May term of the District Court, of Cowley County, to be begun and held on the first Monday, 7th day of May, A. D. 1877, and have been placed on the Trial docket in the following order.
FIRST DAY—CRIMINAL DOCKET.
State
versus Andrew H. Horneman.
“
” Martin Barber.
“
” Jacob G. Titus.
“
” Zebulon Foster.
“
” John W. Barber.
SECOND DAY—CIVIL DOCKET.
Nathan K. Jeffries vs. Martin L. Read.
Oliver Sparkman vs. Wm. Thurman.
Francis Black vs. Edward Patton et al.
Henry F. Ford vs. Nathan Robertson.
Brettun Crapster vs. Stephen D. Williams.
John Rief vs. Gertrude Rief.
Barclay Hockett vs. R. R. Turner.
M. L. Read vs. Enoch G. Willett.
Albert Covert et al vs. Rufus B. Waite.
David Rodocker vs. James Jordon.
William A. Sharp vs. R. L. Walker.
Geo. W. Ballou vs. Rufus B. Waite.
R. B. Waite vs. Geo. W. Ballou.
Robert Hudson vs. Francis R. Hudson.
James C. Hix vs. Joseph Stewart et al.
Elisha S. Torrance vs. Samuel Greer et al.
Wm. R. Warner vs. M. G. Troup Adr.
Arkansas City vs. Jas. L. Huey, Treas.
THIRD DAY.
A. G. Wilson vs. Henry F. Ford.
R. L. McDonald & Co. vs. Henry F. Ford et al.
Challis Bros. & Co. vs. Henry F. Ford et al.
Charles P. Kellogg & Co. vs. Henry F. Ford et al.
Ben Wood & Co. vs. Henry F. Ford et al.
L. Kiper & Sons vs. Henry F. Ford et al.
A. Cuddington vs. A. D. Lee.
Buck McCunes & Patterson vs. Henry F. Ford et al.
James J. Hood vs. Zumri W. Hoge et al.
Lewis Hart vs. Edward L. Walker et al.
Susan J. Ford vs. E. R. Evans.
Martha E. Quimby vs. J. Frederick.
Andrew Dawson vs. John W. Funk.
Andrew Dawson vs. Wm. Brown.
A. G. Wilson vs. Wm. B. Doty et al.
Emily J. Houston vs. Philena Darrah et al.
FOURTH DAY.
Emily Houston vs. Thomas M. Carder et al.
Frank Akers vs. A. H. Green.
Neosho County Bank vs. A. Stoddard.
Albert Minnich vs. Henry F. Ford et al.
M. H. Kenworthy vs. Henry F. Ford et al.
B. W. Sitter vs. Heirs of Tho. F. Lent deceased.
Robert Hudson vs. Francis R. Hudson.
W. S. Paul vs. Benj. H. Bodwell et al.
Sol Nawman vs. C. C. Pierce.
Stephen Brown vs. E. B. Kager.
Thomas Sampson vs. George Walker.
Cynthia Payne vs. Travis Payne.
James Z. McKee vs. Wm. H. Farney.
M. L. Read vs. S. A. Smith et al.
M. L. Read vs. Armstrong Menor et al.
M. L. Read vs. Armstrong Menor et al.
Arthur Graham vs. James H. Tullis et al.
E. A. Graham vs. Robert Corkins.
FIFTH DAY.
Samuel Pitt vs. Elizabeth Pitt.
Nancy McMannes vs. J. S. Harmon et al.
M. L. Read vs. Oscar O. Menor.
Royal H. Tucker vs. Mary L. Tucker.
Drury Warren vs. Tice Saulsberry.
R. B. Waite vs. A. A. Jackson et al.
Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co. vs. S. E. Smith et al.
M. J. Thompson vs. S. W. Greer et al.
W. H. Berryman vs. Wm. Bartlow et al.
John Dunstan vs. L. M. Brown et al.
G. J. Gross vs. Leanah Funk.
New Eng. Loan Co. vs. E. G. Willett et al.
Sarah E. Parker vs. Seymour Tarrant.
Desier A. Clapp vs. T. M. Carder et al.
E. V. Blue vs. R. C. Seehorn et al.
John W. Brown vs. L. A. Packard et al.
Frederick McReynolds vs. S. W. Greer.
Geo. O. Sweet vs. Sumner Oaks.
SIXTH DAY.
Sarah A. Bartlow vs. Wm. Bartlow.
E. V. Blue vs. John W. Taylor.
A. H. Green vs. Emily J. Houston.
C. C. Harris vs. Wm. Bartlow et al.
Nancy A. Rogers vs. J. B. Williams et al.
S. L. Brettun vs. Henry F. Ford et al.
S. L. Brettun vs. Wm. Frederick.
Wm. Fritch vs. Wm. S. Hoff.
Abel D. Bent vs. H. D. Gans.
James Hanlin vs. J. B. Baxter et al.
Cornelius Perry vs. L. Lippman et al.
Mercy M. Funk vs. Heirs of Zimri Stubbs.
W. H. Hitchcock et al vs. J. N. Yerger et al.
M. M. Wells vs. Wm. W. Anderson et al.
James D. Hanlin vs. John Baxter et al.
Peter Yount vs. John D. Headrick Adr.
E. S. BEDILION, Clerk.
Arkansas City Traveler, May 9, 1877. Front Page.
A
Young Man Shoots His Brother.
Martin Barber, of Dexter, Cowley County, shot and severely wounded his half brother, J. W. Barber, on Friday, the 20th inst.
The circumstances, as we learn them are as follows.
J. W. Barber is rather a dangerous and dissipated man who has been in Texas and on the frontier for eight years previous to last December, when he came to his father’s place near the head of Grouse Creek in Cowley County, where he has remained until a short time ago. Two or three weeks ago he attempted to perpetrate an outrage upon his half sister, and has conducted himself generally in an outrageous and scandalous manner, threatening to shoot the whole family.
On Sunday, the 14th inst., he came to Howard City, where his father was staying and got in a quarrel with him, threatening to shoot him, etc., but finally agreed that for $125 he would leave the country forever. To this, the old gentleman, Leander Barber, consented and paid him the money, and the young man went back to the home of the family on Grouse Creek, where he remained for several days, when he went to Dexter.
About this time, Martin Barber, who is a man of exemplary character, about 23 years of age, returned from Emporia, and was told what had occurred; also, that his brother, J. W., had gone to Lazette and left word for Martin to come and see him. Martin started immediately, and not finding him at Lazette, went on to Dexter and found him. After having a few words together, Martin drew a revolver and fired at J. W., the ball taking effect just below his right ear and coming out under his right eye; inflicting a dangerous but not necessarily fatal wound.
Martin Barber then gave himself up to the authorities of Cowley County, and was taken to Winfield, where he waived a preliminary examination and gave bonds in the sum of $2,000 for his appearance at the next term of the District Court.
J. W. Barber, on Sunday night, after having been wounded on Friday, left Dexter, avowedly for the Indian Nation. He is said to have remarked on leaving that he would yet come back to Howard City and “wake them up,” meaning his father and sister.
There seems to be some old grudge existing between J. W. Barber and his father, Leander Barber; what it is we have not heard.
Leander Barber moved to this country some two or three years ago from Bath County, Kentucky.
Martin Barber, the man who did the shooting, has always borne a good character where he was known, and we are convinced that the deed was committed, as he conscientiously believed, in the defense of the lives of his father and sister. Elk County Ledger.
Winfield Courier, May 10, 1877.
Martin Barber, who shot his brother some weeks ago at Dexter, was tried yesterday in the district court at this place before a jury and acquitted. Mr. E. S. Torrance was attorney for Barber.
Winfield Courier, May 10, 1877.
The following are the attorneys in attendance at the Cowley County district court now in session: L. J. Webb, J. E. Allen, D. A. Millington, Jennings & Buckman, E. S. Torrance, Hackney & McDonald, James McDermott, A. H. Green, Pyburn & Seward, J. M. Alexander, Pryor & Pryor, Henry E. Asp, Linus S. Webb, of Winfield; C. R. Mitchell, E. B. Kager, James Christian, of Arkansas City; A. L. Redden, of Eldorado; M. S. Adams, of Wichita; J. D. McBrian, of Sedan, Chautauqua County; J. M. White, of Howard City, Elk County.
[ATTORNEYS
IN ATTENDANCE AT DISTRICT COURT.]
Arkansas City Traveler, May 23, 1877.
The following attorneys were in attendance upon the present term of the District Court: Hon. Alfred L. Redden, of Eldorado; Mr. White, Howard City; Judge M. S. Adams, Wichita; Mr. McBryan, Sedan; Hon. C. R. Mitchell, Amos Walton, Judge Christian, E. B. Kager and Col. McMullen, of Arkansas City; and Messrs. Hackney & McDonald, Pryor & Pryor, Jennings & Buckman, Pyburn & Seward, Jas. McDermott, Henry E. Asp, E. S. Torrance, J. E. Allen, L. J. & Linus Webb, D. A. Millington, A. H. Green, W. M. Boyer, J. M. Alexander, of Winfield.
Arkansas City Traveler, May 23, 1877.
DISTRICT COURT in Cowley County adjourned last Thursday evening. Barber was sentenced to six months in the county jail for attempting to commit rape on his half sister.
Interesting
Publication Notice...
Winfield Courier, June 7, 1877.
Publication Notice.
STATE OF KANSAS, COWLEY COUNTY ss.
In the District Court of Said county,
W. H. Hitchcock and O. F. Boyle, plaintiffs,
vs.
John N. Yerger and Julia Yerger, defendants.
Julia Yerger, one of the above named defendants, in the State of Illinois, will take notice that the above named plaintiffs did, on the 26th day of March, A. D. 1877, file their petition in the said District Court of Cowley county, Kansas, against the above named defendants, setting forth that the said defendants gave a mortgage to one Joseph Likowski on the southeast ¼ of section 27, in township 31, south of range 3, east, situated in said county of Cowley, to secure the payment of $450.00, according to a certain promissory note referred to in said mortgage; which note and mortgage has been assigned to these plaintiffs, who are now and were, at the commencement of this action, the legal owners and holders of the same; and praying for a judgment against the said defendant, John N. Yerger, for the sum of $450.00, with interest at 12 percent per annum from the 14th day of April, A. D. 1874; for an attorney’s fee of $25.00, stipulated in said mortgage; costs of suit, and a sale of the said land according to law, to satisfy the said judgment. The said Julia Yerger will take further notice that she has been sued and must answer the petition filed by the plaintiffs in this action, on or before the 12th day of July, A. D. 1877, or the petition will be taken as true and a judgment as prayed for aforesaid will be rendered accordingly.
W. H. HITCHCOCK & O. F. BOYLE.
By J. M. Alexander, their attorney.
Note: Most of the time I have been skipping all of the legal notices...way too many to type each one...but this one I found of interest! MAW.
[SENSATION
WITH COUPLE IN WINFIELD: FROM ELK COUNTY COURANT.]
Arkansas City Traveler, August 1, 1877. Front Page.
Winfield is enjoying a first-class sensation. A young couple of the upper circle were married about 3 months ago, and were living happily together until about two weeks since, when the fair bride brought forth a fine son and heir. Then, even, the groom was highly elated over his success, but his acquaintances about town began to question his ability to perform such a feat, when the wool was drawn from his eyes, and he left the bride and son, and commenced suit against his wife in district court for damage in the sum of, we believe, $5,000. Of course, he ought to have the damages, and we think Judge Campbell will not hesitate for a single moment to give it to him. Elk County Courant.
Winfield Courier, August 23, 1877.
UTAH DIVORCES.
Our friend, Robert Hudson, has got his divorce. It will be recollected that he had a suit for divorce pending before the District Court of this county for some time which culminated in the refusal of his honor, Judge Campbell, to grant the divorce, but charging him ten dollars per month to be paid to his wife for her support.
Feeling deeply grieved by this decision of the court, he followed in the footsteps of the illustrious Brick Pomeroy, and like him obtain his decree in a probate court of the land of Brigham.
Like Brick, he too accepted the services of a sharp Chicago lawyer, who, for the sum of one hundred dollars, to be deposited in Read’s bank to await the result, agreed to obtain for his client a decree of divorce without alimony that would be valid in this or any other state, and be so pronounced by our courts, and when it should have been so procured and tested, Read was to pay over the fees.
The famous Poland bill which passed Congress and became a law, in giving jurisdiction to the territorial courts of Utah, provides that the Probate Courts of Utah in their respective counties shall have jurisdiction of suits for divorce for statutory causes concurrently with the District courts.
The act of the Territorial legislature of Utah relating to bills of divorce provides that “Any person who is a resident of the Territory or wishes to become one, could maintain an action for divorce in that Territory, and “when it shall appear to the satisfaction and conviction of the court that the parties cannot live in peace and union together, and that their welfare requires a separation” then a divorce shall be granted.
Now neighbor Hudson really does wish to become a resident of Utah, and it is really true that he and his wife “cannot live in peace and union together,” therefore it was very easy to satisfy and convince a probate judge in Utah of these facts. So having first made the required publication in some Utah newspaper that has a circulation of 150 copies, our Chicago limb of the law presents his evidence and the decree of divorce is granted without alimony. An attested copy of the decree is on deposit at Read’s bank awaiting a judicial test in our courts.
Mr. Hudson proposes to refuse payment of the next $10 alimony, which is due Sept. 1st, at which time the District Court will be in session, which will precipitate the test of his divorce which he desires.
We shall leave the matter without expressing an opinion for the court will soon act upon the case.
Winfield Courier, August 30, 1877.
Yesterday John T. Mackay, late captain in the U. S. regular army and late residing in Scotland County, Missouri, was admitted to the bar of the District Court. The Captain comes to us highly recommended.
Winfield Courier, August 30, 1877.
The following attorneys have arrived since Monday, and are in attendance at the District Court this week: Thos. George, of Wellington; Chas. Wilsie, of Oxford; A. L. Redden, of Eldorado; J. C. McMullen and James Christian, of Arkansas City.
Winfield Courier, August 30, 1877.
The District Court commenced its session on Monday with a light docket, and it is to be hoped that it will be cleared up this week. The following members of the bar present: Hon. W. P. Campbell, Judge; E. S. Bedilion, Clerk; R. L. Walker, Sheriff; M. S. Adams, of Wichita, C. R. Mitchell, E. B. Kager, and A. Walton, of Arkansas City; J. McDermott, County Attorney, J. E. Allen, A. J. Pyburn, O. M. Seward, W. M. Boyer, L. J. Webb, W. P. Hackney, J. W. McDonald, E. S. Torrance, H. E. Asp, D. A. Millington, S. D. Pryor, J. D. Pryor, F. S. Jennings, G. H. Buckman, and A. H. Green, of Winfield, attorneys.
Winfield Courier, August 30, 1877.
The Hon. C. Coldwell, and his son, N. C. Coldwell, late of Texas, were admitted to the bar. The Judge comes to us with an honorable reputation as a man and a lawyer, having served with distinction as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Texas. He, with his amiable family, consisting of his lady, son, and three beautiful young lady daughters, are a great social as well as intellectual acquisition to Winfield.
Winfield Courier, August 30, 1877.
Charles C. Black, of Winfield, and Charles Eagan, of Rock, were also admitted to the bar after sustaining very creditably a long and rigid examination in open court, proving that they had been diligent students. Mr. Black invited the officers of the court and members of the bar and press to refreshments at Jim Hill’s, in the evening, which were served up in the best style, and it was an occasion of festivity and enjoyment.
Winfield Courier, September 13, 1877.
Notice of Application for Pardon.
Notice is hereby given that on the 27th day of September, 1877, the undersigned will apply to the Governor of the State of Kansas for the pardon of one John W. Barber, now confined in the jail of Cowley County, Kansas, having been convicted at the May term, 1877, of the district court of said county, of the offense of assault with intent to rape.
LELAND J. WEBB, Attorney for John W. Barber.
Winfield, Kansas, Sept. 6, 1877.
Winfield Courier, September 20, 1877.
JOHN W. BARBER gives notice in another column that on the 27th inst. he will make application for a pardon. We are surprised at his doing this. He is the guest of the county and is as highly honored in Winfield as Gen. Grant is in Europe. Some months ago the mayor presented him with “the freedom of the city.”
Notice of Application for Pardon.
Notice is hereby given that on the 27th day of September, 1877, the undersigned will apply to the Governor of the State of Kansas for the pardon of one John W. Barber, now confined in the jail of Cowley County, Kansas, having been convicted at the May term, 1877, of the district court of said county, of the offense of assault with intent to rape.
LELAND J. WEBB, Attorney for John W. Barber.
Winfield Courier, October 11, 1877.
OUR TICKET.
On Saturday, September 22nd, the Republicans of Cowley County in a regularly called and organized convention, selected from the many good men in the party, the following gentlemen as candidates for county officers at the ensuing election. After an unusually warm contest LEON LIPPMANN
was nominated for Sheriff. Mr. Lippmann is a native of France, of French parentage, and is 33 years old. He came to the United States when but eleven years of age; joined the Union army in 1862 and was honorably discharged from the same at its close in 1865, with all the rights of citizenship of the government. However, to avoid all imaginary objections, he presented his proofs at the last term of our district court, and was “naturalized” under the laws of the U. S., a proceeding entirely unnecessary. He has been a resident of Cowley since 1870, and a more temperate, honorable, and upright citizen does not live within this county, all the flings and covert insinuations of his enemies to the contrary notwithstanding. Mr. Lippmann is a Republican, has always supported the nominees of the party by his voice and vote, and is now deserving of the straightforward and honest support of the entire party.
Arkansas City Traveler, October 17, 1877.
Leon Lippmann, the
Republican Candidate for Sheriff.
As some slurs have been made against Mr. Lippmann being a citizen of the United States, etc., we give place to the following taken from the Courier of Winfield.
Mr. Leon Lippmann is a native of France, of French parentage, and is 33 years old. He came to the United States when but eleven years of age; joined the Union army in 1862, and was honorably discharged from the same at its close in 1865, with all the rights of citizenship of the Government. However, to avoid all imaginary objections, he presented his proofs at the last term of our district court, and was “naturalized” under the laws of the U. S., a proceeding entirely unnecessary.
He has been a resident of Cowley since 1870, and a more temperate, honorable, and upright citizen does not live within this county; all the flings and cover insinuations of his enemies in the country notwithstanding. Mr. Lippmann is a Republican, has always supported the nominees of the party by his voice and vote, and is now deserving of the straightforward and honest support of the entire party.
Arkansas City Traveler, November 28, 1877.
The following bill was introduced by Senator Ingalls on the 23rd day of October last.
A BILL
To enable Indians to become citizens of the United States.
Be
it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That whenever any Indian tribe or nation
having treaty relations with the United States shall desire to become a citizen
of the United States, he may become such citizen by appearing in any circuit or
district court of the United States, and making proof, to the satisfaction of
said court, that he is sufficiently intelligent and prudent to control his own
affairs and interests; that he has adopted the habits of civilized life, and
has for the last five years been able to support himself and family; and taking
an oath to support the Consti-tution of the United States: Provided,
That no Indian who avails himself of the provisions of this act shall, on that
account, forfeit any interest which he may have in any improvement or other
property in the reservation of the tribe or nation to which he may have
belonged; nor shall such act in any manner impair his rights and interests in
the lands, claims, or other property belonging, or which may hereafter belong,
to his tribe or nation.
SEC. 2. That all laws, and parts of laws inconsistent with the provisions of this act be, and the same are hereby, repealed.
Not certain this applies to Cowley County District Court...
Winfield Courier, December 6, 1877.
The suit of Taylor vs. District 82 has been reversed in the Supreme Court. The school-house was built on the corner of a farm, and the deed, though, not recorded. Afterwards the farm was mortgaged, and the mortgage foreclosed and an effort made to hold the school building. The mortgagee won the case in the District Court, on a technicality which is now reversed.
Winfield Courier, December 27, 1877.
The supreme court has reversed the decision of the Cowley district court in the case of Brake vs. Ballou.
Pertinent item included under following statement...
Winfield Courier, January 31, 1878.
Treasurer’s Quarterly Statement for
Quarter Ending Dec. 31, 1877.
FUNDS/AMOUNT.
District court fines $67,000
Winfield Courier, January 31, 1878.
Two stonemasons named Cady and Roberts on last Monday evening got into a fight in a saloon on Main street. Roberts gouged at Cady’s eye while Cady bit at Roberts’ finger. The result was that the eye did not come out but the finger came off. Cady was bound over in $1,000 bonds to answer for the mayhem in the district court. We don’t know anything about the parties, and don’t wish to. We suppose the law will do justice in the case, therefore we suppress our sentiments concerning the transaction to avoid creating prejudice before judicial investigation.
[TRIAL: BILSON AND RIDENOUR.]
Arkansas City Traveler, February 20, 1878.
THE TRIAL OF BILSON AND RIDENOUR was held at Pearson’s Hall last Wednesday afternoon and night. County Attorney McDermott prosecuted the case, with C. R. Mitchell defending Ridenour, and Amos Walton defending Bilson. Judge Christian and I. H. Bonsall were the judges. Bilson was bound over to appear at the next term of the District Court, in the sum of $600, and failing to obtain bail, was committed to jail. The evidence was not sufficient to convict Ridenour, and he was discharged. In searching Bilson’s property, in Mrs. Williams’ boarding house, some goods were found that had been taken from Charley Balcom’s house some time ago, also some articles that were taken from A. K. Melton’s trunk.
Winfield Courier, February 28, 1878.
A man named Nicholas Hostetler, living about four miles north of Arkansas City, had a preliminary examination before Justice Boyer charged with incest. The victims are two young daughters, fine looking and appearing modest, timid, and frightened. It is charged that the crime commenced against each when about twelve years of age, and has continued with the elder the last four, and with the younger the last two years under threats of death in case of complaint. The defense, supported by many circumstances, claim that it is a job put up by his children and others to get rid of the old man (who is near sixty years old) and get his property. He was held to bail in $3,000, in default of which he is confined in the county jail to await the May session of the district court. Public sentiment is very strong against him and there has been talk of lynching, but better counsels seem to prevail. We do not desire to prejudice the case in any way, and we avoid expressing an opinion as to the truth of the charge, but, if true, we have no words adequate to express our abhorrence.
[LIST
OF PETIT JURORS FOR MAY TERM OF DISTRICT COURT.]
Arkansas City Traveler, March 13, 1878.
List of the petit jurors for the May term of the District Court.
G.
W. Martin, Winfield township.
R.
S. Thompson, Omnia township.
S.
P. Channell, Creswell township.
J.
M. Mark, Liberty township.
B.
B. Vandevanter, Winfield township.
Stephen
Elgins, Omnia township.
James
Jackson, Silver Creek township.
John
Harden, Dexter township.
John
M. Gates, Bolton township.
Thessins
Magginnis, Liberty township.
J.
H. Mounts, Liberty township.
Abijah
Howard, Richland township.
Arkansas City Traveler, March 27, 1878.
Stolen
Horses Recovered.
Friday afternoon two well appearing young men rode into town horseback, and stopped for the night. In the morning they attempted to sell their horses very cheap, claiming they were from Sumner County and needed money. In the meantime a postal card was received stating that two horses, a sorrel horse with white face and a bay horse, had been stolen from Thayer, Kansas, about 100 miles distant. One of the horses had been purchased in the meantime by Mr. Riddle, the dry goods merchant, who traded a suit of clothes for it. The postal card was directed to the City Marshal, and was handed to Wm. Gray, who, with constable Morgan, examined the property, found the description almost exact, and arrested the two men in the saloon without resistance. They had a preliminary trial before Judge Christian and were bound over to appear at the next term of the District Court to be held in May. In default of bail, they were committed to jail. The countenances of the two were not of the best, and their demeanor before the Justice’s court was such as to make anyone believe they were guilty, as they declined to give their names or answer any questions. Before taking them to jail, Mr. Riddle recovered the clothes he had traded them, but is out the $4 in cash he gave as booty.
Winfield Courier, April 4, 1878.
From the Traveler we get the following items.
Two well appearing young men not long ago stopped at Arkansas City and tried to sell two horses cheap. A card about that time came into the hands of the city marshal describing the horses as stolen from the town of Thayer. The young men were arrested, examined by Judge Christian, and committed to jail for trial at the next term of the District Court. They refused to give their names.
[DISTRICT COURT.]
Winfield Courier, April 11, 1878.
Mr. E. S. Bedilion, District Clerk, furnishes us with the following list of cases which will probably be for trial at the next term of the District Court commencing on Monday, May 6th, 1878.
CRIMINAL DOCKET.
State of Kansas versus—
F. G. Cady, mayhem.
C. Coon, trespass.
S. Huston, larceny.
Nicholas Hostetler, incest.
W. H. Belson, larceny.
W. H. Belson, burglary.
C. R. Turner, peace W.
CIVIL DOCKET.
Geo. Stewart v. R. B. Waite.
John Brooks v. E. B. Kager, Co. Treas.
Jas. Renfro v. Margaret Renfro. Adm.
A. H. Green v. Sarah E. Requa.
Joel E. Cox v. Mary J. Cox.
Geo. Wafer v. H. C. Colson.
J. M. Alexander, et al, v. W. W. Andrews.
M. L. Read v. Robt. Hudson et al.
B. C. Cook v. W. F. Worthington.
State of Kansas ex ral Cessna v. A. G. Thurman.
H. B. Ray et al v. D. P. McAlister.
J. W. Blizzard v. J. G. Titus.
Nancy McManus v. J. S. Harmon.
Parker & Canfield v. R. B. Scott.
W. W. Vessels v. T. J. Vessels.
Frank Porter v. E. W. Colson et al.
M. D. Wells v. T. E. Gilleland.
Chas. Seacat v. S. E. Hostetter et al.
J. C. McMullen v. Jas. Steener et al.
Amelia Ragland v. R. P. Akers.
A. W. Gault v. T. D. Hargrove et al.
Henry Scheffer v. J. F. Berner.
R. B. Waite v. Cowley coun.
Mary H. Buck v. J. B. Southard et al.
S. L. Brettun v. A. H. Beck.
S. L. Brettun v. J. C. Goss et al.
G. P. Strum v. J. K. Stevens et al.
Lizzie M. Martin v. M. E. Paugh et al.
Graham & Moffit v. J. F. Baurer et al.
Bovie & Melville v. E. R. Evans et al.
T. H. Barrick v. J. S. Garrison et al.
S. Frederick v. Co. Commissioners.
J. C. McMullen v. Jas. Morgan et al.
Lucinda Perry v. Luther Perry.
C. C. Harris v. Sanford Day et al.
Mary H. Buck v. D. J. Bright et al.
W. R. Sears v. H. Collum et al.
S. McMasters v. N. Hughes.
L. G. Yoe v. T. E. Gilleland.
Thos. Watts v. W. D. L. Devore et al.
E. H. Gallup v. Calvin Coon.
R. B. Waite v. Henry Schneider.
M. L. Wilson v. H. B. Rude et al.
E. Howland v. E. B. Johnston et al.
E. Howland v. J. B. Pierson et al.
A. F. Ferris v. J. A. Demming et al.
J. H. Hill v. G. A. Jackson et al.
Rebecca Turner v. F. C. Davis et al.
Hackney & McDonald v. W. W. Andrews.
Mary H. Buck v. M. W. Luckey.
M. Harkins v. E. C. Hurst et al.
M. M. Funk v. Cynthia Clark et al.
E. C. Seward v. S. H. Myton et al.
J. C. McMullen v. P. F. Endicott et al.
Samuel Hoyt v. J. F. Gassoway et al.
Buck McCuen & Patterson v. T. E. Gilleland.
Mary H. Buck v. J. K. Stevens et al.
C. C. Harris v. J. B. Lynn.
Parker & Canfield v. E. B. Kager.
Giesecke Meysenbury & Co. v. T. E. Gilleland.
T. H. Rarrick v. W. D. Mowry et al.
Chas. Barr v. T. J. Raybell et al.
J. C. McMullen v. M. A. Bowers et al.
A. P. Dickey v. T. A. Wilkinson.
Elizabeth Meyer v. W. H. Brown et al.
J. W. Hamilton v. J. D. Pryor et al.
Nancy Bishop v. E. B. Johnson.
[DISTRICT
COURT.]
Arkansas City Traveler, April 17, 1878.
District
Court.
Mr. E. S. Bedilion, District Clerk, furnishes us with the following list of cases which will probably be for trial at the next term of the District Court, commencing on Monday, May 6, 1878.
CRIMINAL DOCKET.
State of Kansas vs. F. G. Cady, mayhem.
State of Kansas vs. C. Coon, trespass.
State of Kansas vs. S. Huston, larceny.
State of Kansas vs. N. Hostetter, incest.
State of Kansas vs. W. H. Bilson, larceny.
State of Kansas vs. W. H. Bilson, burglary.
State of Kansas vs. C. R. Turner, peace W.
CIVIL DOCKET.
Geo. Stewart v. R. B. Waite.
John Brooks v. E. B. Kager, Co. Treasurer.
Jas. Renfro v. Margaret Renfro, Administrator.
A. H. Green v. Sarah E. Requa.
Joel E. Cox v. Mary J. Cox.
Geo. Hafer v. H. C. Colson.
J. M. Alexander, et al, v. W. W. Andrews.
M. L. Read v. Robt. Hudson, et al.
B. C. Cook v. W. F. Worthington.
State of Kansas, ex ral, Cessna v. A. G. Thurman.
H. B. Ray et al v. D. F. McAllison.
J. W. Blizzard v. J. G. Titus.
Nancy McManus v. J. S. Harmon.
Parker & Canfield v. R. B. Scott.
W. W. Vessels v. T. J. Vessels.
Frank Porter v. E. W. Colson et al.
M. D. Wells v. T. E. Gilleland.
Chas. Seacat v. S. E. Hostetter et al.
J. C. McMullen v. Jas. Steiner et al.
Amelia Ragland v. R. P. Akers.
A. W. Gault v. T. D. Hargrove et al.
Henry Scheffer v. J. F. Berner.
R. B. Waite v. County Com.
Mary H. Buck v. J. B. Southard et al.
S. L. Brettun v. A. H. Beck.
S. L. Brettun v. J. C. Goss et al.
G. P. Strum v. J. K. Stevens et al.
Lizzie M. Martin v. M. E. Paugh et al.
Graham & Moffit v. J. F. Baurer et al.
Boyle & Melville v. E. R. Evans et al.
T. H. Barrick v. J. S. Garrison et al.
S. Frederick v. Co. Commissioners.
J. C. McMullen v. J. Morgan et al.
Lucinda Perry v. Luther Perry.
C. C. Harris v. Tanford Day et al.
Mary H. Buck v. D. J. Bright et al.
W. R. Sears v. C. Collum et al.
S. McMasters v. N. Hughes.
L. G. Yoe v. T. E. Gilleland.
T. Watts v. W. D. L. Devore et al.
E. H. Gallup v. Calvin Coon.
R. B. Waite v. Henry Schneider.
M. L. Wilson v. H. B. Rude et al.
E. Howland v. E. B. Johnston et al.
E. Howland v. J. B. Pierson et al.
A. F. Ferris v. J. A. Denning, et al.
J. N. Hill v. G. A. Jackson et al.
Rebecca Turner v. F. C. Davis et al.
Hackney & McDonald v. W. W. Andrews.
Mary H. Beck v. M. W. Luckey.
M. Harkins v. E. C. Hurst et al.
M. M. Funk v. Cynthia Clark et al.
E. C. Seward v. S. H. Myton et al.
J. C. McMullen v. P. F. Endicott et al.
Samuel Hoyt v. J. P. Gassoway et al.
Buck, McCuen & Patterson v. T. E. Gilleland.
Mary H. Buck v. J. K. Stevens et al.
C. C. Harris v. J. B. Lynn.
Parker & Canfield v. E. B. Kager.
Giesecke, Mevsenbury & Co. v. T. E. Gilleland.
T. H. Barrick v. W. D. Mowry et al.
Chas. Barr v. T. J. Raybell et al.
J. C. McMullen v. M. A. Bowers et al.
A. P. Dickey v. T. A. Wilkinson.
Elizabeth Myers v. W. H. Brown et al.
J. W. Hamilton v. J. D. Pryor et al.
Nancy Bishop v. E. B. Johnson.
[JURY: MAY TERM OF DISTRICT COURT.]
Winfield Courier, May 2, 1878. Editorial Page.
The following is the regular jury for May term of the District Court: G. W. Martin, James Jackson, R. S. Thompson, John Harden, S. P. Channell, John M. Gates, J. M. Mark, Thessius Magginnis, B. B. Vandeventer, J. H. Mounts, Stephen Elkins, Abijah Howard.
Winfield Courier, May 2, 1878. Editorial Page.
DISTRICT COURT.
Mr. E. S. Bedilion, District Clerk, furnishes us with the following list of cases which will probably be for trial at the next term of the District Court commencing on Monday, May 6th, 1878.
CRIMINAL DOCKET.
First Day.
State of Kansas versus
F. G. Cady, mayhem.
C. Coon, trespass.
S. Huston, grand larceny.
N. Hostetler, incest.
W. H. Bilson, grand larceny.
W. H. Bilson, burglary.
C. R. Turner, peace W.
W. Steadman, grand larceny.
CIVIL DOCKET.
Second Day.
Geo. Stewart v. R. B. Waite.
John Brooks v. E. B. Kager, Co. Treas.
Jas. Renfro v. Margaret Renfro, Adm.
A. H. Green v. Sarah E. Requa.
Joel E. Cox v. Mary J. Cox.
Geo. Hafer v. H. C. Catran.
J. M. Alexander, et al., v. W. W. Andrews.
M. L. Read v. Robt. Hudson et al.
M. L. Read v. S. C. Winton et al.
B. C. Cook v. W. F. Worthington.
State of Kansas ex rel Cessna v. A. J. Thurman.
H. B. Ray et al v. D. B. McAllister.
Third Day.
J. W. Blizzard v. J. G. Titus.
Nancy McManis v. J. S. Harmon.
Parker & Canfield v. R. B. Scott.
M. W. Vessels v. T. J. Vessels.
Frank Porter v. E. W. Coulson et al.
D. Thompson v. A. H. Buckwalter.
M. D. Wells & Co. v. T. E. Gilleland.
Chas. Seacat v. S. E. Hostetter et al.
J. C. McMullen v. Jas. Stiner et al.
Houghton & McLaughlin v. L. Maricle.
S. P. Channell v. L. Maricle.
Amelia Ragland v. R. P. Akers.
Fourth Day.
A. W. Gault v. T. Hargrove et al.
Henry Schieffer v. J. F. Berner.
R. B. Waite v. Cowley Commissioners.
Mary H. Buck v. J. B. Southard et al.
S. L. Brettun v. A. H. Beck.
S. L. Brettun v. J. C. Goss et al.
M. H. Buck v. J. A. Tipton et al.
G. P. Strumm v. J. K. Stevens et al.
Lizzie M. Martin v. M. E. Paugh et al.
B. Crapster v. C. E. Houx et al.
Graham & Moffit v. J. F. Berner et al.
Boyle & Melville v. E. R. Evans et al.
T. H. Barrett v. J. S. Garris et al.
S. Frederick v. Co. Commissioners.
J. C. McMullen v. Jas. Morgan et al.
Lucinda Perry v. Luther Perry.
C. C. Harris v. Sanford Day et al.
Fifth Day.
Mary H. Buck v. D. J. Bright et al.
W. R. Sears v. H. Collum et al.
L. McMasters v. N. Hughes.
L. G. Yoe et al. v. T. E. Gilleland.
Thos. Watts v. M. D. L. Devore et al.
A. W. Hoyt v. L. Tipton.
E. H. Gallup v. Calvin Coon.
R. B. Waite v. Henry Schneider.
M. L. Wilson v. H. B. Rude et al.
E. Howland v. E. B. Johnston et al.
E. Howland v. J. W. Pearson, et al.
A. F. Harris v. J. A. Deming et al.
J. H. Hill et al v. G. A. Jackson et al.
Rebecca Turner v. F. C. Davis et al.
Hackney & McDonald v. W. W. Andrews.
Mary H. Buck v. M. W. Luckey.
M. Harkins v. E. C. Hurst et al.
M. M. Funk v. Cynthia Clark et al.
Sixth Day.
E. C. Seward v. S. H. Myton et al.
J. C. McMullen v. P. F. Endicott et al.
Samuel Hoyt v. J. B. Gassaway et al.
Buck, McCouns & Patterson v. T. E. Gilleland.
S. L. Brettun v. L. D. Darnall et al.
Mary H. Buck v. J. K. Stevens et al.
C. C. Harris v. J. B. Lynn.
Parker & Canfield v. E. B. Kager et al.
Giesecke Meysenbury & Co. v. T. E. Gilleland.
T. H. Barrett v. W. D. Mowry et al.
Chas. Barr v. T. J. Raybell et al.
J. C. McMullen v. M. A. Bowers et al.
A. P. Dickey v. T. A. Wilkinson.
Elizabeth Meyer v. W. H. Brown et al.
J. W. Hamilton v. J. D. Pryor et al.
Nancy Bishop v. E. B. Johnson.
Arkansas City Traveler, May 8, 1878.
M. G. TROUP has been admitted to the bar to practice in the District Court as an attorney. Troup has the ability to make a good one.
Winfield Courier, May 9, 1878.
District Court Proceedings.
Monday, May 6th, 10 o’clock a.m. His Honor, W. P. Campbell, on the bench. Present: C. L. Harter, sheriff; E. S. Bedilion, clerk; Jas. McDermott, prosecuting attorney; attorneys C. Coldwell, W. F. Hackney, Henry E. Asp, J. E. Allen, D. C. Beach, E. S. Torrance, J. M. Alexander, A. J. Pyburn, N. C. Coldwell, Jas. Christian, G. H. Buckman, S. D. Pryor, J. Wade McDonald, C. R. Mitchell, J. D. Pryor, C. C. Black, R. C. Story, L. J. Webb, W. M. Boyer, F. S. Jennings, and D. A. Millington.
The docket was called. The following cases were dismissed: Geo. Stewart vs. R. B. Waite, Jas. Renfro vs. M. J. Renfro, J. E. Cox vs. Mary J. Cox, State ex rel. Cessna vs. A. H. Thurman, Nancy McManus vs. John S. Harmon, Parker & Canfield vs. R. B. Scott, Margaret W. Vessels vs. T. J. Vessels, Houghton & McLaughlin vs. L. Maricle, S. P. Channel vs. L. Maricle, S. L. Brettun vs. Adam H. Beck, R. Crapster vs. Clara E. Houx et al, M. Harkins vs. Elizabeth C. Hunt, J. C. McMullen vs. P. F. Endicott et al., S. L. Brettun vs. L. D. Darnall et al, T. H. Barrett vs. W. D. Mowry et al.
Judgment for plaintiff by default was ordered in the following: M. L. Read vs. R. Hudson et al, B. C. Cook vs. W. F. Worthington, S. L. Brettun vs. J. C. Groce et al, Lizzie M. Martin vs. Peter Paugh, J. C. McMullen vs. J. Morgan et al, L. G. Yoe et al vs. T. E. Gilleland, A. W. Hoyt vs. Israel Tipton et al, E. Howland vs. J. W. Pearson et al, A. F. Faris vs. Julia A. Deming et al, Hackney & McDonald vs. W. W. Andrews, Mary H. Buck vs. M. Luckey, Samuel Hoyt vs. J. B. Gassaway, Buck, McCouns et al vs. T. E. Gilleland, Geysecke, Meysenburg & Co. vs. T. E. Gilleland, Charles Barr vs. T. J. Raybell, A. P. Dickey vs. T. A. Wilkinson.
The following cases were continued: H. Schieffer vs. J. F. Berner, L. McMasters vs. Nathan Hughes, Mercy M. Funk vs. Cynthia Clark et al.
The following cases stand on demurrer: H. B. Kay et al vs. D. B. McAllister, J. H. Hill vs. Geneva Jackson et al, J. C. McMullen vs. Martha Bowers et al, Elizabeth Meyer vs. W. H. Brown et al.
Motion was made by to admit M. G. Troup as member of the bar. Court appointed G. H. Buckman, J. D. Pryor, and L. J. Webb a committee to examine the applicant and adjourned to half past one for the examination and to 8 o’clock on Tuesday morning for the further business of the court. In the afternoon the candidate was examined and admitted.
Tuesday, May 7. State vs. Coon; dismissed and defendant discharged.
State vs. Samuel Huston; H. E. Asp appointed by the court attorney for defendant.
State vs. N. Hostetler; defendant plead not guilty.
State vs. W. H. Bilson; defendant plead not guilty on both indictments.
H. B. Ray et al vs. D. B. McAllister; demurrer withdrawn and judgment for plaintiffs rendered.
J. C. McMullen vs. Martha Bowers, administratrix, et al.; F. S. Jennings appointed guardian, ad litem, of minor heirs of Reuben Bowers.
Venire for additional jurors ordered yesterday returned served on D. A. Byers, H. C. Catlin, H. C. McDorman, Simeon Martin, W. W. Thomas, J. W. Miller, L. B. Stone, A. C. Davis, and W. S. Gilman; John Young, A. C. Winton, and Andrew Ross not found.
State vs. Nicholas Hostetler called and trial proceeded; Attorneys J. McDermott for State, E. S. Torrance and H. E. Asp for defendant. This case occupied the balance of the day and is not concluded. It is a case in which an old man is charged with incest. The details of the evidence offered are not fit for publication.
O. M. Seward is one of the Winfield attorneys in attendance on the court. Had we not omitted his name or some other in yesterday’s report, we should have made it too nearly correct for any use.
The Daily Winfield Courier, Saturday Morning, May 11, 1878.
District Court Proceedings.
State vs. Samuel Houston. Plea in abatement overruled.
J. C. McMullen vs. James Stiner et al., judgment for plaintiff by default.
Lizzie M. Martin vs. M. D. L. Devore et al., judgment for plaintiff by default and foreclosure of mortgage.
J. H. Hill vs. Geneva Jackson et al. Set for Monday next.
E. Meyer vs. W. H. Brown et al., demurrer withdrawn and answer filed.
State vs. William H. Bilson; called and trial proceeded. Offense grand larceny. Jury empanneled as follows: J. M. Mark, J. R. Vandeventer, James Jackson, W. S. Gilman, M. A. Kelsey, J. W. Miller, John W. Gates, S. Elkins, J. H. Mounts, Abijah Howard, D. A. Byers, S. Martin. County Attorney appeared in behalf of the state and E. S. Torrance, H. Asp, and Amos Walton for the defendant. This case occupied the whole day and will come up again this morning.
The Daily Winfield Courier, Saturday Morning, May 11, 1878.
DISTRICT COURT.
First Day.
State of Kansas v. S. Huston, grand larceny.
State of Kansas v. W. H. Bilson, grand larceny.
State of Kansas v. W. H. Bilson, burglary.
State of Kansas v. W. Steadman, grand larceny.
CIVIL DOCKET.
Second Day.
John Brooks v. E. B. Kager, County Treasurer.
A. H. Green v. Sarah E. Requa.
Joel E. Cox v. Mary J. Cox.
Geo. Hafer v. H. C. Catran.
J. M. Alexander, et al., v. W. W. Andrews.
M. L. Read v. S. C. Winton et al.
State of Kansas ex rel Cessna v. A. J. Thurman.
Third Day.
J. W. Blizard v. J. G. Titus.
Frank Porter v. E. W. Coulson et al.
D. Thompson v. A. H. Buckwalter.
M. D. Wells & Co. v. T. E. Gilleland.
Chas. Seacat v. S. E. Hostetter et al.
Amelia Ragland v. R. P. Akers.
Fourth Day.
A. W. Gault v. T. Hargrove et al.
R. B. Waite v. Cowley Commissioners.
Mary H. Buck v. J. B. Southard et al.
M. H. Buck v. J. A. Tipton et al.
G. P. Strumm v. J. A. Stevens et al.
B. Crapster v. C. E. Houx et al.
J. C. McMullen v. L. Tipton et al.
Graham & Moffit v. J. F. Berner et al.
Boyle & Melville v. E. R. Evans et al.
T. H. Barrett v. J. S. Garris et al.
L. Frederick v. Co. Commissioners.
S. C. Harris v. Sanford Day et al.
Fifth Day.
Mary H. Buck v. D. J. Bright et al.
W. R. Sears v. H. Collum et al.
L. G. Yoe et al. v. T. E. Gilleland.
E. H. Gallup v. Calvin Coon.
R. B. Waite v. Henry Schneider.
M. L. Wilson v. H. B. Rude et al.
J. H. Hill et al. v. G. A. Jackson et al.
Rebecca Turner v. F. C. Davis et al.
Sixth Day.
E. C. Seward v. S. H. Myton et al.
Mary H. Buck v. J. K. Stevens et al.
C. C. Harris v. J. B. Lynn.
Parker & Canfield v. E. B. Kager et al.
J. C. McMullen v. M. A. Bowers et al.
Elizabeth Meyer v. W. H. Brown et al.
J. W. Hamilton v. J. D. Pryor et al.
Nancy Bishop v. E. B. Johnson.
District Court Proceedings.
Winfield Courier, May 16, 1878.
Wednesday, May 8. Charles Eagin, attorney from Rock, appeared in court today.
G. & C. Merriam vs. T. A. Wilkinson. Entered on the docket, and by confession, judgment rendered for plaintiffs.
The court has been occupied all day in the incest case of State vs. Hostetler.
The evidence was all in about 2:30 p.m. The charge of the court was elaborate and clear, and the arguments of the County Attorney, McDermott for the state, and of Mr. Torrance for the defense, were eloquent, searching, and exhaustive. Mr. Torrance addressed the jury for over four hours, when the court adjourned until this morning at 8 o’clock, when Mr. McDermott will again address the jury, and the jury will retire to consider their verdict.
The jurors trying this case are: Stephen Elkins, James Jackson, John M. Gates, Thessius McGinnis, Abijah Howard, Daniel Hunt, Clark Bryant, A. R. Davis, Samuel Huey, J. W. Miller, and Thos. Chaffey.
Thursday, May 9. State vs. N. Hostetler.
Hon. J. McDermott made his closing address to the jury, who retired, and a short time before noon brought in a verdict of “not guilty.” The defendant was discharged.
Amelia Ragland vs. Rufus P. Akers, set for trial on Tuesday next.
Rufus B. Waite vs. County Commissioners, set for trial Wednesday next.
C. C. Harris vs. J. B. Lynn, set for trial Tuesday next.
The Sheriff’s Sales of real estate in the following cases were confirmed by the court and deeds ordered to be made by the sheriff to the purchasers.
M. L. Read vs. A. Menor, et al.
M. L. Read vs. O. Menor et al.
M. L. Read vs. W. H. Hitchcock et al.
M. L. Read vs. A. Menor and R. Menor.
W. S. Pane vs. Benj. Bodwell et al.
C. C. Harris vs. William Bartlow et al.
State vs. Frank G. Cody called for trial.
Jurymen empaneled were: J. M. Mark, J. B. Vandeventer, Lewis Stevens, W. L. Gilman, W. C. Davis, W. W. Thomas, S. Martin, James Byers, H. C. Catlin, C. Northrup, H. L. Barker, and W. E. Tensey. [Tansey?]
The prisoner is charged with mayhem in biting off the finger of a Mr. Roberts. James McDermott, attorney for the state. Hackney and McDonald for the defendant.
The trial terminated in a verdict of acquittal by the jury.
State vs. Chas. H. Turner, peace warrant, was tried by the court. McDermott, Hackney, and McDonald for the State; and Webb and Black for defendant. Defendant discharged.
State vs. Samuel Houston. Plea in abatement overruled.
J. C. McMullen vs. James Stiner et al. Judgment for plaintiff by default.
Lizzie M. Martin vs. M. D. L. Devore et al. Judgment for plaintiff by default and foreclosure of mortgage.
J. H. Hill vs. Geneva Jackson et al.; set for Monday next.
E. Meyer vs. W. H. Brown et al. Demurrer withdrawn and answer filed.
State vs. William H. Bilson; called and trial proceeded. Offense grand larceny.
Jury empaneled as follows: J. M. Mark, J. B. Vandeventer, James Jackson, W. S. Gilman, M. A. Kelsey, J. W. Miller, John W. Gates, S. Elkins, J. H. Mounts, Abijah Howard, D. A. Byers, S. Martin.
County Attorney appeared in behalf of the state and E. S. Torrance, H. Asp, and Amos Walton for the defendant. The case occupied the whole day and will come up again this morning.
Friday, May 11th.
Motion to admit C. H. Payson to the bar. Court appointed S. D. Pryor, J. E. Allen, and L. B. Kellogg a committee of examination. Committee reported favorably and applicant admitted.
State vs. Wm. Steadman. Plea in abatement overruled.
Ballou vs. Braker. Judgment entered against Ballou for the costs.
State vs. Bilson. Trial continued. This was on the charge of burglary instead of grand larceny, as stated yesterday. The case was argued by counsel and submitted at about noon, when the jury retired and court adjourned for all purposes except to receive the verdict, to Monday morning at 8 o’clock.
State vs. Bilson. At about 11 o’clock on Saturday evening the jury returned a verdict of burglary in the second degree.
Monday, May 13, State vs. Houston: two indictments for grand larceny.
Defendant was arraigned and plead guilty on both.
State vs. Steadman. Defendant was arraigned and plead “not guilty.”
J. H. Hill vs. Jackson et al.
The demurrer was argued until late in the afternoon by J. W. McDonald for plaintiff and Coldwell and Coldwell for defendant. Demurrer sustained and defendant has leave to file answer by general denial.
State vs. Wm. Steadman, grand larceny.
County Attorney James McDermott appeared for the state and E. S. Torrance and Henry Asp for Defendant.
The following are the names of the jurors sworn to try the case, after which the court adjourned till eight o’clock this morning, when it will proceed to trial.
Jurors: J. M. Mark, B. B. Vandeventer, S. Elkins, J. Jackson, John M. Gates, T. McGinnis, J. H. Mounts, A. Howard, D. A. Byers, H. C. Catlin, H. C. McDorman [McDorman?], S. Martin, W. W. Thomas, J. W. Miller, A. C. Davis, and W. S. Gilman.
Tuesday, May 14.
State vs. W. H. Bilson. Motion for a new trial heard and overruled.
Notice of a motion in arrest of judgment.
State vs. William Steadman. Trial concluded.
The jury brought in a verdict of guilty of grand larceny.
Amelia Ragland vs. Rufus P. Akers. Motion to dismiss overruled.
Geo. Hafer vs. H. C. Catlin. Suit for damage resulting from a prairie fire.
Tried by jury: verdict for defendant.
Albert Minnick vs. H. F. Boynton. Sale of real estate confirmed.
H. H. Hill vs. Jackson et al. Continued to next term.
Amelia Ragland vs. Rufus P. Akers.
Appeal from Justice’s court by defendant. Dismissed by defendant at his costs.
District Court Proceedings.
Winfield Courier, May 23, 1878.
May 15.
M. L. Read vs. S. C. Winton et al.
Submitted on demurrer of plaintiff to answer of defendant Waite. The court, after a protracted argument, overruled the demurrer as to second ground and sustained it as to the third.
A. H. Green vs. Sarah E. Requa et al.
Exceptions to dispositions of defendant filed. Motion to quash depositions sustained and leave to retake them granted. Case continued to next term.
John W. Blizzard vs. Jacob G. Titus.
Motion to dismiss appeal overruled. Case dismissed, the plaintiff failing to appear.
Parker and Canfield vs. E. B. Kager et al.
Motion to make petition more definite and correct overruled. Leave to the answer refused. Judgment by default.
Sol. Frederick vs. County Commissioners.
Tried by jury. Verdict for plaintiff $175 damages.
R. B. Waite vs. County Commissioners.
Continued until next term.
J. W. Hamilton vs. Jno. D. Pryor et al.
Motion to make definite and certain sustained.
Leave granted to amend and sixty days given to answer.
W. R. Sears vs. H. Collum et al.
Petition in error. Dismissed.
E. H. Gallup, administrator vs. Calvin Coon.
Appeal dismissed.
H. M. Phenix vs. John Kinney.
Petition in error. Dismissed.
Rebecca Turner vs. F. C. Davis et al.
Judgment for plaintiff $345.
Alexander & Saffold vs. W. W. Andrews.
Judgment for plaintiff $485.
Charles Seacat vs. S. E. Hostetler et al.
Continued.
C. C. Harris vs. Sanford Day et al.
Trial by jury.
May 16.
C. C. Harris vs. Sanford Day et al.
Trial continued and concluded at about 3 o’clock p.m. Jury retired.
Perry vs. Perry.
Divorce case tried by the court. Decision reserved.
Wilson vs. Rude et al.
Dismissed as to Rude. Trial proceeded as to other defendants by jury.
May 17.
C. C. Harris vs. Sanford Day et al.
Jury continued out all day, and at night reported that they could not agree.
They were discharged and case continued.
M. L. Wilson vs. Rude et al.
Trial proceeded until afternoon, when it being ascertained that the trial could not be concluded this week, the case was continued and jury discharged.
Several other cases came up on motion and some were disposed of; but our reporter is not in as we go to press.
Steadman and Houston were sentenced to the penitentiary for three years for horse stealing.
May 18.
J. Brooks vs. E. B. Kager.
Supplemental petition struck from files.
Geo. Hafer vs. A. C. Catran.
Motion for new trial overruled.
Lucinda Perry vs. Luther Perry.
Dismissed without prejudice.
R. B. Waite vs. Henry Snyder.
Judgement for plaintiff.
E. Howland vs. E. B. Johnson et al.
Judgment for plaintiff.
E. C. Seward vs. S. H. Myton et al.
Judgment for plaintiff.
Court adjourned to next term.
Winfield Courier, May 30, 1878.
Publication
Notice.
STATE OF KANSAS, COWLEY COUNTY, SS.
In the District Court of said county.
Mercy M. Funk, Plaintiff, vs. Cynthia Clark, Mary Bacon, Rhoda Stubbs, and Almyra B. Stubbs, a minor, Defendants.
To Cynthia Clark, Mary Bacon, and Rhoda Stubbs, defendants in the above entitled cause, and non-residents of the State of Kansas, Greeting:
You and each of you are hereby notified that you have been sued by the plaintiff, Mercy M. Funk, in the district court of the County of Cowley, State of Kansas, and that unless you answer the petition of the plaintiff on or before the 13th day of July, A. D. 1878, the same will be taken as confessed by you; and judgment will be rendered by said court in favor of the said plaintiff and against you and each of you for the partition of the following described real estate, situated in the said County of Cowley, to wit: The east half of the southeast quarter of section No. nineteen and the west half of the southwest quarter of section No. twenty, all in township No. thirty south, of range No. four east; and for the adjustment and apportionment of certain liens, claimed by the plaintiff, upon the whole of said tract of land, for and on account of moneys by her expended in the purchase and improvement of the same.
HACKNEY & McDONALD, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Attest: E. S. BEDILION, Clerk.
[SHOOTING
AFFRAY AT WINFIELD: WEBB KILLS PAGE.]
Arkansas City Traveler, June 5, 1878.
SHOOTING
AFFRAY AT WINFIELD.
One of the most unfortunate affairs that has occurred at Winfield for many years was the result of a quarrel between L. J. Webb, Representative of the 88th Legislative District of this county, and Page, the saloon man, who recently erected the new brick saloon on Main street at that place. It seems that the two had been gambling, and that Mr. Webb lost about $100 he had collected for his clients, and crazed with liquor, he walked into the saloon and shot Page dead, the ball passing through his heart. The affair caused terrible excitement and much regret. Mr. Webb is now in custody, and will be held to await his trial at the October term of the District Court.
Arkansas City Traveler, June 5, 1878.
Cowley County furnished three students for the penitentiary at the last term of the District Court.
Arkansas City Traveler, June 12, 1878.
L. J. WEBB had his preliminary trial before Esquire Boyer last week, and was bound over to appear at the next term of the district court, in the sum of $ . He is now in jail.
[EVIDENTLY TRAVELER DID NOT FIND OUT DOLLAR AMOUNT.]
Winfield Courier, August 8, 1878.
Reason Treadway, the young man who was suspicioned as being the person who stole W. B. Hill’s money from his house recently, has made a confession. He says that upon stealing it, he at once took it some distance from the house and hid it under a rock, where it remained for one week. During the week he left Mr. Hill. Afterward he went back and got the money from under the rock and took it to Winfield. On the way over he bought a horse for $40, which probably led to his detection, as it was known that he had no money when he got through working for Hill. He was found in Winfield and brought back by officer McClurge, to Harrison Township. He has given the horse to Mr. Hill, together with $3.60, all that he had left, and his note for $14.00. On his arrival in Harrison Township, a party of masked men met the officer with Treadway. They took Treadway from the officer and told him that unless he confessed and made amends they would stretch a short piece of rope they had with them by placing one end around his neck and the other over a limb of an adjacent tree. At this time he confessed partially, but he made a full confession to Mr. Hill afterward. He will very likely be held for trial at the district court. Cedarvale Times.
Winfield Courier, August 15, 1878.
District Court.
Judge Campbell writes to say that he would like to accommodate those who may desire an adjournment of the court for one week, but fears public interest would suffer thereby; therefore, the court will be held at the regular time and proceed without adjournment. Court commences August 26th.
Winfield Courier, August 22, 1878.
Trial List.
The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the August A. D. 1878 term of the District Court of Cowley County, and have been placed on the Trial Docket in the following order.
FIRST DAY -
CRIMINAL DOCKET. August 26, 1878.
State vs. Leland J. Webb. [James McDermott; E. S. Torrance, Coldwell & Coldwell.]
State vs. Daniel P. Faler. [James McDermott; E. S. Torrance.]
State vs. John W. Blissard. [James McDermott; Hackney & McDonald.]
State vs. Louis Tournier. [James McDermott.]
SECOND
DAY - CIVIL DOCKET.
A. H. Green vs. Sarah B. Requa. [Hackney & McDonald; Jas. McDermott and E. S. Torrance.]
M. L. Read vs. S. C. Winton et al. [Hackney & McDonald; Pryor & Pryor and A. J. Pyburn.]
Frank Porter vs. Eli W. Coulsen. [J. E. Allen.]
M. D. Wells & Co. vs. T. E. Gilleland. [Jennings & Buckman; Hackney & McDonald.]
Charles Seacat vs. Sarah Hostetler et al. [J. E. Allen; N. C. Coldwell.]
Henry Sheiffer vs. John F. Berner. [J. E. Allen.]
Rufus B. Waite vs. Board Co. Commissioners. [Pryor & Pryor; James McDermott.]
Mary H. Buck vs. John A. Tipton et al. [Buck & Kellogg.]
C. C. Harris vs. Sanford Day et al. [Hackney & McDonald and F. S. Jennings; James McDermott.]
Mary H. Buck vs. David J. Bright et al. [Webb & Black; Hackney & McDonald.]
Lucian McMasters vs. Nathan Hughes. [Webb & Black; Hackney & McDonald.]
Martin L. Wilson vs. George P. Wagner. [Hackney & McDonald; James McDermott and E. S. Torrance.]
J. H. Hill et al. vs. Geneva Jackson et al. [Hackney & McDonald; Coldwell & Coldwell and A. J. Pyburn.]
Mercy M. Funk vs. Cynthia Clark et al. [Hackney & McDonald; A. J. Pyburn.]
Christopher C. Harris vs. J. B. Lynn. [Hackney & McDonald; J. E. Allen and E. S. Torrance.]
Parker & Canfield vs. E. B. Kager et al. [James Christian; Pryor & Pryor.]
John C. McMullen vs. Martha A. Bowers et al. [Webb & Black; C. R. Mitchell.]
Elisabeth Meyer vs. William H. Brown. [Hackney & McDonald; C. R. Mitchell.]
THIRD
DAY.
James W. Hamilton vs. John D. Pryor et al. [C. H. Payson; Hackney & McDonald and Pryor & Pryor.]
Nancy Bishop vs. E. B. Johnston. [C. H. Payson; Hackney & McDonald.]
Ledora A. Powell vs. John Stout. [Hackney & McDonald; Webb & Black and E. S. Torrance.]
Mercy M. Funk, Administratrix, vs. M. G. Troup, Administrator. [Jennings & Buckman; J. E. Allen.]
Mary Strickland vs. Henry Strickland. [J. M. Alexander.]
Robert H. Cox vs. Mat. Chambers et al. [James Christian; Hackney & McDonald.]
John Brooks vs. Samuel N. Bell et al. [Hackney & McDonald.]
William Martin vs. Laura Lewis et al. [A. J. Pyburn.]
John C. McMullen vs. Alfred Carry et al. [J. E. Allen; Hackney & McDonald.]
W. H. H. Maris vs. J. V. Waggoner et al. [A. J. Pyburn; J. E. Allen.]
State, on petition of Eugene E. Bacon vs. Clifton M. Wood. [James McDermott; Hackney & McDonald.]
Walter L. Pennington vs. Henrietta Craig et al. [Hackney & McDonald; J. M. Alexander.]
William B. Skinner vs. Charlotte Walck et al. [Hackney & McDonald.]
Nancy J. Ross vs. James Ross. [James McDermott.]
James Brayley vs. Jacob C. Groce et al. [Pryor & Pryor.]
Charles L. Flint vs. Chas P. Morgan et al. [Brown & Campbell and D. C. Beach.]
Charles L. Flint vs. Nannie J. Cease et al. [Brown & Campbell and D. C. Beach.]
Sarah E. Aldrich vs. James A. Kerr et al. [Pryor & Pryor.]
FOURTH DAY.
J. S. Chick vs. C. W. Mitchell et al. [E. S. Torrance; Hutchings & Denison.]
G. H. McCumber vs. William Storms. [C. H. Eagin; E. S. Torrance.]
John Lazell vs. Isaac N. Ellsbury. [D. C. Beach.]
Phillip Hedges vs. Emily C. Hedges. [M. G. Troup.]
C. M. Henderson vs. Frank Gallotti. [J. E. Allen; Pryor & Pryor.]
S. C. Brettun vs. Amelia Smiley et al. [Webb & Black.]
Sophia Schemerhorn vs. Strong Petter et al. [Webb & Black; Hackney & McDonald.]
Geo. M. Bayley et al vs. Drury Warren. [Webb & Black; Hackney & McDonald.]
S. L. Brettun vs. Isaac H. Phenis et al. [Webb & Black.]
M. Brettun vs. Wm. Smith et al. [Webb & Black; J. E. Allen.]
Lizzie Kelley vs. Wm. A. Kelley. [Hackney & McDonald.]
Michael Harkins vs. Charles Gallert. [Webb & Black.]
Nancy Bishop vs. E. B. Johnston. [C. H. Payson; Hackney & McDonald.]
C. A. Bliss et al vs. W. C. Bradfield. [James McDermott.]
James A. Loomis vs. E. B. Kager et al. [James A. Loomis; Hackney & McDonald, Torrance, and Pryors.]
W. H. H. Maris vs. T. W. Gant et al. [A. J. Pyburn.]
FIFTH DAY.
A. A. Jackson vs. The Winfield Town Company. [Coldwell & Coldwell and A. J. Pyburn.]
A. H. Green vs. Margaret J. McGee. [Hackney & McDonald; Coldwell & Coldwell and A. J. Pyburn.]
John Nichols vs. Harrison Barton. [E. S. Torrance; Jennings & Buckman.]
Henrietta Craig vs. W. L. Pennington et al. [J. J. Alexander; Hackney & McDonald.]
Oliver A. Pratt vs. John C. McMullen. [Pryor & Pryor; Webb & Black.]
Fonds & Gump vs. Walker Brothers. [Jennings & Buckman; Hackney & McDonald.]
Cochran, Carroll & Co. vs. Walker Brothers. [E. S. Torrance; Hackney & McDonald.]
J. P. Campbell & Co. vs. Walker Brothers. [E. S. Torrance; Hackney & McDonald.]
City of Winfield vs. Wm. A. Lee. [N. C. Coldwell; E. S. Torrance.]
City of Winfield vs. Dennis Lynch. [N. C. Coldwell; E. S. Torrance.]
E. S. BEDILION, Clerk.
Note:
Lawyers—first named (for first party mentioned).
After semicolon: lawyers for second
party.
[DISTRICT
COURT OF COWLEY COUNTY: TRIAL LIST.]
Arkansas City Traveler, August 28, 1878.
The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the August A. D. 1878 term of the District Court of Cowley County, and have been placed on the Trial Docket in the following order.
1ST DAY—CRIMINAL
DOCKET, AUG. 26, 1878.
State vs. Leland J. Webb.
State vs. Daniel P. Faler.
State vs. John W. Blizzard.
State vs. Louis Tournier.
SECOND
DAY—CIVIL DOCKET.
A. H. Green vs. Sarah E. Requa.
M. L. Read vs. S. C. Wintin, et al.
Frank Porter vs. Eli W. Coulson.
M. D. Wells & Co. vs. T. E. Gilleland.
Charles Seacat vs. Sarah Hostetter, et al.
Henry Sheiffer vs. John R. Barner.
Rufus B. Waite vs. Board Co. Commis’rs.
Mary H. Buck vs. John A. Tipton, et al.
C. C. Harris vs. Sanford Day, et al.
Mary H. Buck vs. David J. Bright, et al.
Lucian McMasters vs. Nathan Hughes.
Martin L. Wilson vs. George P. Wagner.
J. H. Hill, et al vs. Geneva Jackson, et al.
Mercy M. Funk vs. Cynthia Clark, et al.
Christopher C. Harris vs. J. B. Lynn.
Parker & Canfield vs. E. B. Kager, et al.
John C. McMullen vs. Martha A. Bowers, et al.
Elizabeth Meyer vs. William H. Brown.
THIRD DAY.
James W. Hamilton vs. J. D. Pryor, et al.
Nancy Bishop vs. E. B. Johnston.
Ledora A. Powell vs. John Scott.
Mercy M. Funk, Ad’x vs. M. G. Troup, Ad’r.
Mary Strickland vs. Henry Strickland.
Robert H. Cox vs. Mat. Chambers, et al.
John Brooks vs. Samuel N. Bell, et al.
William Martin vs. Laura Lewis, et al.
John C. McMullen vs. Alfred Cary, et al.
W. H. H. Maris vs. J. V. Waggoner, et al.
State, on petition of Eugene E. Bacon, vs. Clifton M. Wood.
Walter L. Pennington vs. Henrietta Craig et al.
William B. Skinner vs. Charlotta Wack, et al.
Nancy J. Ross vs. James Rose.
James Brayley vs. Jacob C. Groce, et al.
Charles L. Flint vs. Nannie J. Cease, et al.
Sarah E. Aldrich vs. James A. Kerr, et al.
FOURTH DAY.
J. S. Chick vs. C. W. Mitchell, et al.
G. E. McCumber vs. William Storms.
John Lazell vs. Isaac N. Ellsbury.
Phillip Hedges vs. Emily C. Hedges.
C. M. Henderson vs. Frank Galotti.
S. L. Brettun vs. Amelia Smiley, et al.
Sophia Schemerhorn vs. Strong Pepper, et al.
Geo M. Bayley et al vs. Drury Warren.
S. L. Brettun vs. Isaac H. Phenis, et al.
S. L. Brettun vs. Isaac H. Phenis, et al.
M. Brettun vs. Wm. Smith, et al.
Lizzie Kelley vs. Wm. Kelley.
Michael Harkins vs. Charles Gallert.
Nancy Bishop vs. E. B. Johnston.
C. A. Bliss, et al vs. W. C. Bradfield.
James A. Loomis vs. E. B. Kager, et al.
W. H. H. Maris vs. T. W. Gant, et al.
W. H. H. Maris vs. T. W. Gant, et al.
FIFTH DAY.
A. A. Jackson vs. The Winfield Town Co.
A. H. Green vs. Margaret J. McGee.
John Nichols vs. Harrison Barton.
Henrietta Craig vs. W. L. Pennington, et al.
Oliver A. Pratt vs. John C. McMullen.
Fonda & Gump vs. Walker Brothers.
Cochran, Carroll & Co. vs. Walker Bros.
J. P. Campbell & Co. vs. Walker Brothers.
City of Winfield vs. Wm. A. Lee.
City of Winfield vs. Dennis Lynch.
Winfield Courier, August 29, 1878.
District Court.
Met Monday morning, August 26th, 1878.
Present: Judge W. P. Campbell, Sheriff C. L. Harter, Clerk E. S. Bedilion, Attorneys McDermott, Torrance, C. Coldwell, N. C. Coldwell, Hackney, McDonald, Pryor, Pyburn, Allen, Jennings, Buckman, Black, Webb, Alexander, Beach, Troup, Jarvis, Asp, of Winfield; and Dennison, of Osage Mission.
The following cases were continued: McMasters vs. Hughes, Brettun vs. Phenis.
The following were dismissed: Buck vs. Bright; Bliss vs. Bradfield; Maris vs. Gant; Nichols vs. Barton—appeal; Fonda & Gump vs. Walkers; J. P. Campbell & Co. vs. Walkers; Winfield vs. Lee—appeal; Cochran, Carroll & Co. vs. Walkers; Powell vs. Stout.
Judgment for plaintiff on default in the following: Maris vs. Waggoner, Brayley vs. Groce, Lazell vs. Ellsbury, Brettun vs. Smiley, Schemerhorn vs. Pepper, Bayley vs. Warren, Harkens vs. Gallert, Maris vs. Gant.
Daniel P. Faler plead guilty of assault and battery. Judgment, nominal fine and imprisonment.
Martin vs. Lewis, M. G. Troup appointed guardian of minor defendants ad litem; judgment against others.
Skinner vs. Walck. D. C. Beach appointed guardian of minor defendants ad litem; judgment against others.
Chick vs. Mitchell et al. Removed to the U. S. circuit court.
Henderson vs. Gallotti. Motion overruled.
Craig vs. Pennington. Improperly on the docket.
Jury was called and court adjourned to 9 o’clock a.m., August 27.
The following are the names of jurors drawn for this court: Levi Fluke, O. P. West, Thos. Parvin, S. D. Klingman, J. E. Cox, Sampson Johnson, A. B. Gardner, H. S. Libby, I. B. Todd, Michael Bush, H. J. Donley, T. A. Chapin, T. B. Myers, Dennis Cunningham, J. I. Mitchell, Devine Terrill, Daniel Hawkins, G. W. Yount, W. T. Beasley, J. W. Browning, Rudolph Hoffmaster, D. M. Patton, J. P. Short, J. W. Millspaugh.
TUESDAY—SECOND DAY.
State vs. Louis Tournier. Defendant discharged.
Hamilton vs. Pryor; motion overruled.
State vs. John Blizzard. Trial by jury, continued all day and jury were out most of the night. Verdict: guilty and recommends the prisoner to the mercy of the court.
WEDNESDAY—THIRD DAY.
State vs. L. J. Webb; motion for change of venue. Defense given until tomorrow morning to file additional affidavits in support of the motion.
M. L. Wilson vs. G. P. Wagner; jury empanneled and trial proceeded.
Winfield Courier, September 5, 1878.
District Court.
State vs. John W. Blizzard. Trial by jury. Verdict guilty.
G. M. Bailey et al vs. Drury Warren. Judgment for plaintiffs, $822.72.
State vs. L. J. Webb. Venue changed to Sedgwick County. Defendant bound over to appear in $12,000 and witnesses recognized to be in attendance.
State vs. Louis Tournier. Defendant discharged.
M. L. Read vs. S. C. Winton et al. Judgment for plaintiff $337.37 [? HARD TO READ] and foreclosure.
Frank Porter vs. E. W. Coulson. Continued.
M. D. Wells & Co. vs. T. E. Gilleland. Judgment for plaintiff $62.25.
Mary H. Buck vs. John A. Tipton et al. Judgment, foreclosure.
Same vs. D. J. Bright et al. Dismissed.
L. McMasters vs. N. Hughes. Continued.
J. C. McMullen vs. A. Carry et al. Dismissed.
James Brayley vs. J. C. Groce et al. Judgment for plaintiff $452.90.
John Lazell vs. L. N. Ellsbury. Judgment for plaintiff $167.
S. L. Brettun vs. A. Smiley et al. Judgment for plaintiff $567.82 and foreclosure.
M. Brettun vs. Wm. Smith et al. Continued.
M. Harkins vs. C. Gallert. Judgment for plaintiff $498.82.
Nancy Bishop vs. E. B. Johnson. Petition in error dismissed.
S. Schemerhorn vs. Strong Pepper et al. Judgment for plaintiff $408.87 and foreclosure.
Lizzie Kelly vs. W. A. Kelly. Divorce granted.
C. C. Harris vs. J. B. Lynn. Continued.
M. L. Wilson vs. G. P. Wagner. Trial by jury. Verdict for plaintiff $70.
State vs. C. M. Wood. Dismissed.
W. B. Skinner vs. C. Walck et al. Judgment for plaintiff quieting title.
Elizabeth Myers vs. W. H. Brown. Judgment for plaintiff quieting title.
Mary Strickland vs. Henry Strickland. Divorce granted.
C. L. Flint vs. N. J. Cease. Plaintiff’s title confirmed.
City of Winfield vs. Lynch. Dismissed.
A. A. Jackson vs. Winfield Town Company. Continued for service.
Philip Hedges vs. E. C. Hedges. Divorce granted.
Sarah E. Aldrich vs. J. A. Kerr et al. Judgment for plaintiff $258.66 and foreclosure.
Mary Buck vs. John A. Tipton et al. Judgment for plaintiff $220.80 and foreclosure.
J. B. Hill et al vs. Geneva Jackson et al. Judgment for plaintiff for recovery of real estate.
[DISTRICT
COURT PROCEEDINGS.]
Arkansas City Traveler, September 11, 1878.
The following cases were tried before Judge Campbell during the term of court, up to September 5, 1878.
State vs. J. W. Blizzard, charged with burning wheat stacks; tried by jury; verdict guilty.
G. M. Bailey et al vs. Drury Warren. Judgments for plaintiffs, $822.72.
State vs. L. J. Webb, charged with murder in the first degree for the shooting of Page, the saloon man. Venue was changed to Sedgwick County. Defendant bound over to appear in $12,000, and witnesses recognized to be in attendance.
Louis Tournier, charged with illegal intercourse, or living with Kate Umbell without being legally married, was discharged.
M. L. Read vs. S. C. Winton et al. Judgment for plaintiff $637.57 and foreclosure.
Frank Porter vs. E. W. Coulson. Continued.
M. T. Wells vs. T. E. Gilleland. Judgment for plaintiff, $62.25
Mary H. Buck vs. John Tipton et al. Judgment and foreclosure.
Same vs. D. J. Bright et al. Dismissed.
The suit of L. McMasters vs. N. Hughes, for malpractice, was continued.
J. C. McMullen vs. A. Carey et al. Dismissed.
James Brayley vs. J. C. Groce et al. Judgment for plaintiff, $452.90.
John Lazell vs. I. N. Ellsbury. Judgment for plaintiff and foreclosure.
M. Brettun vs. William Smith et al. Continued.
M. Harkins vs. C. Gallert. Judgment for plaintiff, $498.82. This was a foreclosure suit on some timber land at the mouth of the Walnut, to repay borrowed money.
Nancy Bishop vs. E. B. Johnson. Petition in error; dismissed.
S. Schemerhorn vs. Strong Pepper et al. Judgment for plaintiff $408.87 and foreclosure.
Lizzy Kelly vs. W. A. Kelly. Divorce granted.
C. C. Harris vs. J. B. Lynn. Continued.
M. L. Wilson vs. G. P. Wagner. Trial by jury. Verdict for plaintiff, $70.
State vs. C. M. Wood, charged with drunkenness in office, as Mayor of Winfield, was dismissed.
W. B. Skinner vs. C. Walck et al. Judgment for plaintiff quieting title.
Elizabeth Myers vs. W. H. Brown. Judgment for plaintiff quieting title. This suit arose from the sale of land by an administrator, and the proceedings not being regular. Mrs. Myers recovers the land and W. H. Brown holds Samuel Hoyt responsible for the title.
Mary Strickland vs. Henry Strickland. Divorce granted.
C. L. Flint vs. N. J. Cease. Plaintiff’s title confirmed.
City of Winfield vs. Lynch. Dismissed.
A. A. Jackson vs. Winfield Town Company. Continued for service.
Philip Hedges vs. E. C. Hedges. Divorce granted.
Sarah E. Aldrich vs. J. A. Kerr et al. Judgment for plaintiff $258.66 and foreclosure.
Mary Buck vs. John A. Tipton et al. Judgment for plaintiff $220.80 and foreclosure.
J. H. Hill et al vs. Geneva Jackson et al. Judgment for plaintiff for recovery of real estate.
Winfield Courier, September 12, 1878.
S. M. Jarvis.
It will appear from the District Court proceedings in this issue that Mr. Samuel M. Jarvis has been admitted to the bar. Mr. Jarvis is a young man of excellent attainments and a gentleman who will honor his chosen profession. He sustained creditably a thorough examination and is pronounced a well-read student of law. He has had a considerable experience as a journalist, is affable and obliging, of irreproachable character, and we take pleasure in commending him to those desiring legal assistance.
Winfield Courier, September 12, 1878.
Councilman Wood.
Last week, under the head of “District Court,” we announced that the case of the State vs. C. M. Wood was dismissed.
This action was brought with the view of ousting the defendant from his office as Councilman of the City of Winfield on the charge of taking too much whiskey. The dismissal of the case for want of evidence is as complete a vindication of Mr. Wood as would have been a trial and acquittal. C. M. Wood has been peculiarly energetic, efficient, and valuable as a member of the city council and has always had the welfare of the city at heart. We can point with pride to our miles of fine stone sidewalks, among the best in the state, and to many other valuable improvements and regulations, most of the credit of which is due to him, and we are not among those who are always ready to “sit down on” every man who has labored earnestly and efficiently for the good of our city and county.
Winfield Courier, September 12, 1878.
District Court.
MONDAY, September 2, 1878.
Parker & Canfield vs. E. B. Kager et al. Judgment for plaintiffs, $31.94, and foreclosure of mechanic’s lien.
John Brooks vs. S. N. Biel et al. Leave to answer granted. Continued.
J. H. Hill et al vs. Geneva Jackson et al. New trial granted. Continued.
Mercy M. Funk, adm’x., vs. M. G. Troup, administrator. Continued.
Sept. 3.
State vs. L. J. Webb. Removed to Sedgwick County. Admitted to bail in $12,000.
Mercy M. Funk vs. Cynthia Clark et al. Plaintiff ordered to make petition more definite. Continued.
A. H. Green vs. M. J. McGee. Judgment for defendant. New trial granted. Continued.
E. G. Parker vs. P. McConnell et al. New trial granted. Continued.
A. H. Green vs. Sarair E. Requa. Judgment for plaintiff, $71.
Sept. 4.
R. B. Waite vs. County Commissioners. Judgment for defendants. New trial granted. Continued.
C. M. Henderson vs. F. Gallotti et al. Judgment for plaintiff.
J. W. Hamilton vs. J. D. Pryor et al. Demurrer overruled. Plaintiff given sixty days to amend his petition.
Sept. 5.
State vs. John W. Blizzard. Defendant sentenced to the penitentiary 1 year.
M. L. Wilson vs. G. F. Wagner. Judgment for plaintiff, $75.
John Nichols vs. H. Barton. Appeal dismissed.
Samuel M. Jarvis admitted to practice law in the district and inferior courts of this state.
J. C. McMullen vs. M. A. Bowers et al. Judgment for plaintiff, $918.51, and foreclosure.
Geo. H. McCumber vs. Wm. Storms. Judgment for defendant, $50.
W. L. Pennington vs. H. Craig et al. Dismissed.
Robert H. Cox vs. M. Chambers et al. Judgment for plaintiff, $490, and foreclosure.
James A. Loomis vs. E. B. Kager et al. Judgment for plaintiff against 20 defendants; continued as to 4 defendants.
Court adjourned.
Following might apply to Cowley County...
[TEXAS
CATTLE LAW: CONSTITUTIONAL.]
Arkansas City Traveler, September 18, 1878.
At its last session the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the statute of Missouri, prohibiting the importation of Mexican cattle, is void, being in conflict with the federal constitution. This created great anxiety in the minds of the farmers and cattle dealers of this State, as our law is somewhat similar to the one referred to. The Missouri law absolutely prohibits the taking of such cattle to that State between March 1st and December 1st, and because of this absolute prohibition, the Supreme Court says it is forbidden by the clause of the constitution giving to Congress the exclusive power to “regulate commerce between the States.”
Last week the question of the validity of our law arose in a case tried in the district court of this county. After a thorough examination of the subject, Judge Crozier held that our law, being essentially different from the statute of Missouri, is not liable to the objection made to the latter, which makes no provision for a quarantine, while the former sets apart nearly one-half the State for that purpose.
As the main objection made by the Supreme Court to the Missouri law was the want of such provision, the decision was held inapplicable here. Leavenworth Times.
Arkansas City Traveler, October 2, 1878.
E. S. Bedilion announces himself a candidate for the office of Clerk of the District Court. He has made the most efficient Clerk this county has ever had and will be elected again.
Winfield Courier, October 24, 1878.
STEALING THE TOWN SITE.
A SCRAP OF HISTORY.
Allison and other speakers in the interest of Troup, in their violent efforts to charge some evil against E. C. Manning, are making the statement that Manning stole the townsite of Winfield, and that it is from the money that he got for lots belonging to others, which has erected his magnificent building.
Now, some of the men who most strenuously insisted on Manning’s candidacy at this time, and who are among his most earnest supporters, are men who fought him all through this townsite contest and know, if anyone does, of any wrong that he did in relation to that matter. If they do not know of any, no one does.
But when such a charge is made, it is not against Manning alone, but becomes a personal charge against the senior editor of this paper and others associated with Manning in the town site enterprise, and we now propose to answer it by stating the facts which all who are familiar with the past history of this city know to be true, for the information of such voters as were not here, and know these matters only by hearsay.
The settlement of this county commenced in 1869, before the treaty for the removal of the Indians was made; before there was any survey of the lands or any steps taken to open these lands up for settlement, by settlers coming in and making claims of 160 acres each and improving them, which claims were afterward secured to these settlers by law. Among these claimants were E. C. Manning and A. A. Jackson, who made claims on what is now the north half of section 28. A. Menor and H. C. Loomis laid claims on the south half of same section, and C. M. Wood and W. W. Andrews claimed the half section next north of this section. Each of these claimants proceeded to occupy and improve his claim, and had as good a right to his claim as any man had on this reserve. Each had the undisputed right to prove up and enter his claim when the land should be ready to be offered.
In 1870 these several parties and others formed the project of making a town site. A town company was formed and Manning was to give the town company a certain 40 acres of his claim when he had entered it, for which the company was to pay one-half of the expense of building the old log store. Jackson, Wood, Andrews, Loomis, and Menor were all to sell portions of their claims to the town company at about seven dollars per acre, so that in the aggregate the town site should be 160 acres.
In August, 1870, we, in company with J. C. Fuller, came here. Jackson was then “off the track,” denying having agreed to sell any part of his claim and stating that he never would sell any of it to the town company. We bought Jackson’s claim for J. C. Fuller, paying Jackson $1,000 in cash for it.
It was found that neither of the other parties would sell any part of their claims to the town company, but Manning turned over his 40 acres to the town company as it had been agreed, and this was all the land that the town company could get out of the original arrangement.
No one then doubted the right of E. C. Manning to the remaining 120 acres of his claim, or of J. C. Fuller to his 160 acre claim bought of Jackson. In the meantime, through the efforts of Manning exclusively, the county seat had been located at Winfield, at which time Manning was the only occupant, and, deeming it necessary to move ahead in building up the town in order to retain the county seat and other advantages, and as there was not land enough belonging to the town company, the Winfield Town Association was formed by Manning, Fuller, and others, including ourself, to handle another 40 acres of Manning’s claim with the west 80 acres of Fuller’s claim, which, with the town company’s 40 acres, made a town site of 160 acres in square form. This was surveyed and platted, and the two companies proceeded to give away lots to persons who would improve and occupy them, to other persons who would work for the benefit of the town in any way, and for other purposes to benefit the town. More than one-third, and nearly one-half of the lots in value, have been given to occupants, to stage companies to induce stage service to Winfield, for services in and outside of Winfield, for churches, schools, courthouse and jail, and for other public purposes.
The two companies with Manning, Fuller, and ourself, have paid out in the aggregate more than five thousand dollars in cash for the general benefit of the town site in various ways, aside from buildings for personal use. These expenses are too various for enumeration, and perhaps some of these expenditures were not judicious. One hundred dollars to procure early railroad surveys to this place, for instance, also ninety dollars for printing and circulating posters and papers to advertise the town, two hundred dollars to enter the town site, expenses in traveling to railroad director’s meetings, making a ferry across the Walnut, running roads, surveying the town site, employing legal counsel, etc. Each of us have expended a great deal of time in various ways intended to benefit the town.
The parties who were induced to occupy and improve lots on the town site before the survey and before the entry, did so under an express agreement, generally in writing, as to what their individual interests in the town site should be and what should be the interests of the town companies. The government survey took place in January, 1871, and on the 10th day of July, 1871, the land became subject to entry at the land office at Augusta.
In nearly all the other town sites of the state made before entry, the original claimants entered the land and then deeded to the occupants, town companies, and others, according to previous agreement, and that was originally the intention with regard to this town site, but the commissioner of the general land office had made a ruling in the case of this reserve, that the claimant must, before entering, subscribe an oath, that he had not sold or agreed to sell or otherwise dispose of, any part of the claim he proposed to enter, and though this ruling was clearly outside of law and the oath if taken would not be an oath at all in fact (as afterwards decided by the courts) yet Manning and Fuller did not like to conform to it as others were doing. They, therefore, procured the probate judge of the county to enter the town site under the town site laws, and then each entered the other 80 acres of his claim in his own name.
About this time became manifest a disposition of some of the occupants to claim more of the town site than the lots they had improved and quite an excitement sprung up. In order to avoid litigation and make an equitable settlement, Manning called a public meeting in which he offered for the two companies to submit all the matters of difference to arbitration, the companies naming one arbitrator, the dissatisfied occupants the second, and the two thus appointed to select the third, who should hear the evidence of all parties and determine their interests and rights in the town site and their decision should be final, which proposition was voted down and rejected by the dissatisfied occupants. It has since frequently been offered to individuals.
The probate judge, under the law, appointed three commissioners to set off the lots to the several occupants according to their respective interests, and they made their award in accordance with the previous agreement between the occupants and companies as to what those interests should be as above stated and the probate judge executed the deeds accordingly.
The larger number of the occupants expressed themselves satisfied, and to quiet the titles made quit claim deeds to the companies of their interests in the unimproved lots. A few would not be satisfied, but commenced an action to set aside the deeds made by the probate judge. This action was in the courts some time and was finally beaten in the Supreme court on demurrer.
Another action was commenced having the same final object in view, which was finally beaten in the Supreme court. The companies in order to try to get the people to work in harmony for the general benefit of the city, made a great many concessions to pacify these litigants.
During the pendency of the first action, a settlement was made with A. A. Jackson, a leading disturber and plaintiff in that action, by which, in addition to the $1,000 and the two valuable lots that had already been given him, the companies gave him two other valuable lots for any remaining or supposed interest he had in the balance of the town site and the nominal sum of $25, and he withdrew from the suit.
Others were compromised with in various ways, and made quit claims, quiet was restored and all seemed united to promote the general prosperity. These litigations had been very expensive and damaging to the prosperity of the town and had stirred up much bad blood, making Manning many bitter opposers, but in the few years since, the bitterness has mostly died away.
Jackson concluded to grab another valuable lot and Hill & Christie brought suit for possession. Jackson defended on the ground that the deed of the probate judge to the Winfield town company on which Hill & Christie’s title was founded was illegal and void. Jackson employed Hon. A. J. Pyburn and two other attorneys to defend, but was beaten in the trial. As the law provides for a second trial in a case of this nature, this action is now pending in the district court for a new trial.
Two attorneys whom Jackson employed were newcomers and had not gained a practice in the courts. They attempted to start a practice and make a reputation by stirring up a grand litigation on this old town site matter, assured parties that they could burst up the whole thing, get the deeds of the probate judge set aside and a new deal of the town lots. They offered to take the job for one-third of the spoils and urged upon the city council to commence litigation at the public expense.
They finally got A. A. Jackson to go in as plaintiff and a suit was commenced against the Town Company, Manning and Fuller, with a great flourish of trumpets about their ponderous papers and pleadings, but no notice was taken of their summons until court time and they demanded judgment for default, when they learned that they did not know how to get a case into court. They now seemed to conclude that the reason they got beat each time was the fault of the law, and set themselves to manipulate politics so as to get a law passed that would help them beat in these cases, and in another case in which they have succeeded in getting an elderly woman, who had a lot given her, and a slab shanty on it at the time of the entry, to start another suit for a rip up of titles and a new deal.
Pyburn, one of Jackson’s attorneys, is a member of the State Senate and it is thought he can be depended upon to get the new law through the Senate, and, if they can get Troup elected to the House, they feel confident they can pass a law that will beat Hill & Christie, town company, et al., in their pending suits and everybody else that holds title under either of the town companies.
This is the real attempt to steal the town site, but not by Manning. We have no apprehension that any law they can get passed, or any litigation under it, or under the present law, will ever void the titles to the town site, but we do apprehend that it might promote and cause a vast amount of expensive litigation which would be a great detriment to the city by throwing doubt upon titles; make much room for vicious lawyers to practice barratry and champerty, and stir up more bad blood without the least benefit to anyone except the lawyers employed in the matter.
By the way, the lots which Manning has been selling to help build his brick block are in the part of his original claim which he entered himself, and not in that part which was entered by the probate judge, if that makes any difference. Manning probably never got much, if anything, more for lots on the town site than he has expended for the general benefit of the town.
This way of commencing a suit in the courts and then getting a law passed by the legislature to rule and decide the case is a new invention in litigation which no Yankee lawyer would have ever thought of. Such are the facts about stealing the town site.
Winfield Courier, October 31, 1878.
WINFIELD, October 28, 1878.
EDITOR COURIER: Allison, in his paper of last week, devotes some space to me as the Republican candidate for county attorney, and closes by asking me five questions. I have furnished him brief answers to these questions for his paper this week, but lest he may adhere to the tactics he has started out on, and not publish my answers, I ask the privilege of a hearing through your columns.
Allison’s hostility toward me has been of long standing, growing out of the fact that he failed to get the county printing from the county board when I was county attorney. He claimed that my advice to the board concerning the law was what defeated him. When he says that he made attacks upon me through his paper before he made a bid for the county printing, he states an untruth.
Every unprejudiced person who attended the late Greenback county convention and heard Allison’s harangues there in relation to whom he wanted for county attorney will be satisfied that his grudge toward me arose out of the matter of county printing. His imputation that I have been trying to patch up my official record in advance of his charges is a fitting innuendo from his libelous pen, since, from the moment of my nomination, he has been busy retailing false charges against me.
The first three questions he asks he puts in the form of charges against me at a meeting at New Salem, and when Mr. Asp, who was present, asked him if he had any more charges to make against me, and if so, to make them then so that I could reply before the election, Allison said he had, but did not propose to exhibit his powder and shot in advance. He closes the article in his paper with the statement that when these questions are answered he shall propound more in next week’s issue, well knowing that it will be impossible for me to reply to them before the election.
Unless Allison is a true exponent of his party, which I do not believe, his manner of conducting the campaign against me will not be approved by his party, and will be considered worse than bush-whacking by every fair minded person.
And now I will answer his questions in their order.
1st. I was not guilty of a back salary grab in 1872 or in any other year, nor did I ever receive a cent from the county that I was not justly and legally entitled to. I was county attorney from January 1871 to January 1875. Under the law the county board had to fix the salary of county attorney, the amount depending upon the population of the county on the first of March of each year, to be ascertained by the returns of the township assessors, to be made by July 1st, and the board could not legally determine the population until their July session. The board at their July session in July, 1871, fixed the salary of county attorney for that year at $450, and I received that amount in the scrip of the county. At the July session for 1872 the population was such that the county board legally fixed the salary for that year at $1,000, and I received that amount in county scrip worth sixty to seventy cents on the dollar.
2nd. The only part which I had in the allowance of a salary to T. H. Johnson, Probate Judge, was to advise the board that it was in their discretion whether to allow him a salary at all or not, and that in any extent it could not exceed $500. That opinion was correct. The board did allow $500, and this violated no law.
3rd. In relation to the road damages allowed Mr. Johnson, all I had to do with it was to advise the board that it should allow such damages as were just and reasonable.
4th. I never advised the Board of County Commissioners in 1873, or at any other time, that it had a right to grant a whiskey license on the same petition upon which a license had been granted the year before, and, having never given such advice, I of course never received any money on account of such advice; nor did I ever receive, nor was I ever offered, a cent, or any sum of money or valuable thing, to do or forbear to do any official act during the four years that I was county attorney.
5th. John B. Fairbank, A. H. Green, and myself at one time were associated together in the civil practice of the law only. During that time I prosecuted a man by the name of James Stewart on the charge of being implicated in the shooting of a deputy U. S. Marshal on Grouse Creek. Stewart was defended in court by W. P. Hackney and Messrs. Putman & Case, of Topeka, and Mr. Green was in some way connected with the defense, but did not take any active part in the trial of the case. Whether Mr. Green offered Stewart any such inducement to secure his employment as Mr. Allison insinuates, I have no personal knowledge, nor do I care. Mr. Green says he did not, which settles the question in my mind that Mr. Allison lies on that score. This much I do know, that, although Stewart was defended by as good lawyers as the State afforded, the only favor I showed him was to procure his conviction and have him sentenced to the state penitentiary.
I have been informed that Mr. Allison, at a meeting at Beek’s schoolhouse, in Ninnescah Township, on last Saturday night, said that I had been given a yoke of cattle for loosely prosecuting a case in Beaver Township in which two men had been arrested on a charge of bringing Texas cattle into that township. That charge is absolutely false.
Mr. E. B. Johnson was the prosecuting witness in that case. I told Mr. Johnson after he had these men arrested and before the commencement of the trial before the justice of the peace that I believed the statute under which they were held was in contravention of the constitution of the United States, and that they would finally be discharged on that account. Mr. Johnson insisted however on testing that question, and as the county could in no event be liable for the costs, I proceeded with the trial before the justice and a jury. One of the defendants was acquitted because proof could not be obtained that he had any connection with bringing the cattle into the county. The other was convicted and he appealed to the district court, and was there discharged on the ground that the statute was unconstitutional.
It is perhaps a matter of general information that a short time ago the Supreme Court of the United States decided that a similar statute of the State of Missouri conflicted with the constitution of the United States, and on that account was null and void.
These comprise the batch of lies that Mr. Allison, so far as I am advised, has thus far charged against me in this campaign. If he didn’t lie in the last week’s issue of his paper, he intends to publish a new string of falsehoods in the last issue of his paper before the day of election.
In conclusion I have to say that any charges he may make affecting my honesty or integrity as county attorney of this county will be absolutely false; that whatever my ability may have been when acting as county attorney, I honestly and conscientiously endeavored to discharge the duties that the office devolved upon me. E. S. TORRANCE.
Winfield Courier, November 14, 1878.
List of Jurors drawn Nov. 4, 1878, to serve at the December term of court, 1878, in the District Court of Cowley County:
J. J. Jackson, Windsor.
W. G. Hill, Winfield.
William McCullock, Beaver.
C. S. Smith, Vernon.
A. J. Thomas, Sheridan.
J. R. Perry, Creswell.
William Coombs, Creswell.
H. Harbaugh, Pleasant Valley.
Joseph Cole, Liberty.
William Moore, Dexter.
Winfield Courier, November 21, 1878.
LIST of Jurors drawn Nov. 4, 1878, to serve at the December term of court, 1878, in the District Court of Cowley County.
J. M. Jackson, Windsor.
W. G. Hill, Winfield.
William McCullock, Beaver.
C. S. Smith, Vernon.
A. J. Thomas, Sheridan.
J. E. Perry, Creswell.
William Coombs, Creswell.
L. C. Norton, Creswell.
John Devore, Pleasant Valley.
Joseph Cole, Liberty.
William Moore, Dexter.
Winfield Courier, December 5, 1878.
District Court.
Judge Campbell came down from Wichita on Monday and the session of court commenced.
Present: His Honor Judge W. P. Campbell; C. L. Harter, sheriff; E. S. Bedilion, district clerk; J. McDermott, county attorney; and Messrs. J. E. Allen, C. C. Black, S. D. Pryor, A. J. Pyburn, J. M. Alexander, F. S. Jennings, C. R. Mitchell, L. J. Webb, E. S. Torrance, N. C. Coldwell, W. M. Boyer, W. P. Hackney, O. M. Seward, C. H. Payson, H. E. Asp, G. H. Buckman, J. D. Pryor, D. C. Beach, W. M. Boyer, C. Coldwell, M. G. Troup, S. M. Jarvis, A. H. Green, attorneys.
In two or three unimportant State cases, the defendants plead guilty.
Mendenhall vs. Kelly. Dismissed by plaintiff.
Craig vs. Pennington. Settled.
Hamilton vs. Pryor. Demurrer sustained; plaintiff amended and defendant required to answer instanter.
Jackson vs. Winfield Town Company. Demurrer sustained.
McClellan vs. Winfield Town Company. Demurrer sustained.
Porter vs. Coulson. Continued.
Several judgments were taken in default in foreclosure of mortgage cases.
Harris vs. Day. This case is on trial before a jury this Tuesday evening.
Arkansas City Traveler, December 11, 1878.
The District Court at Winfield dispatched business last week. The divorce cases attracted some attention from the fact that they took a double back action; the court refusing to grant a divorce in either case. It resembled Autumn in the icy chains of eternal snow.
“Beauty like the Aloe flower,
Buds and blossoms at four score.”