COWLEY
COUNTY DISTRICT COURT.
Years Covered: 1876, 1877, 1878, 1879, 1880, 1881.
Arkansas City Traveler, February 19, 1879.
PUBLICATION
NOTICE.
STATE
OF KANSAS, COWLEY COUNTY, In the District Court, in said County and State.
J.
C. McMULLEN, PLAINTIFF, VS. CRESSWELL C. ENDICOTT, DEFENDANT.
To
Cresswell C. Endicott, Defendant above named.
YOU are hereby notified that you have been sued by the above named Plaintiff, J. C. McMullen, in the District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District of Kansas, sitting in and for Cowley County, in the State of Kansas, and that the said Plaintiff on the 15th day of February, A. D. 1879, filed his petition in the above named Court demanding Judgment against you the said Defendant, Cresswell C. Endicott, for the sum of Seven Hundred and Thirty-four and Fifty-nine Hundredths Dollars, with interest at the rate of Twelve per cent per Annum from February 15, 1878, on $684.55 thereof and on $25.80 thereof from June 12th, 1878, and from February 12th, 1879, on $24.24 thereof; and that a certain mortgage given by you, the said Defendant, to the Plaintiff, of the South West Quarter of Section Thirty-five, in Township Thirty-four South of Range Four East, in Cowley County, Kansas, be foreclosed; the said lands and tenements ordered to be sold, and the proceeds arising from said sale be applied First, To the payment of all costs. Second. To the payment of the debt due this Plaintiff, including taxes and for such further relief as Plaintiff is entitled to. You are hereby further notified that unless you answer said petition on or before the 4th day of April, A. D. 1879, the said petition will be taken as true, and Judgment rendered against you according to the demands of said petition. PRYOR & PRYOR, Plaintiff’s Attorneys.
Attest, E. S. Bedilion, Clerk of District Court. [SEAL.]
[Shooting of James Kelly by Frank Manny, Brewery Proprietor.]
Winfield Courier, February 27, 1879.
Nearly
a Tragedy.
On last Saturday morning, James Kelly, ex-postmaster and once editor of the COURIER, was shot by Frank Manny, proprietor of the brewery northeast of town. The particulars are, as near as we can learn, as follows.
Mr. Kelly, it seems, attended the phantom ball Friday night to see that the lights, fire, etc., were all right (as he has been doing in the absence of Mr. Manning), and having a key to the back door, came in that way. The managers of the ball objected to his coming in without a ticket, and ordered him to leave; and upon his refusing, Frank Manny and Ed Nickerson dragged him upstairs from the dressing room, across the stage, and pushed him down the front steps. In the morning Mr. Kelly borrowed the delivery wagon of Baird Bros., and asking Charles Payson to “take a ride with him,” proceeded to the brewery northeast of town, where he found Frank Manny at work on his new stone building. On coming in sight of Manny, Kelly said, “There’s the man I want to see,” and handing the lines to Payson, jumped out of the wagon, upon which Manny started on a run for his house. Kelly called out to him to stop; that he wanted to see him. Manny ran on to the house, which is near the brewery building, and procured a shotgun, which he loaded, and returning to the scene of action, met Kelly coming from the ice house, northwest of the stone building, and commanded Kelly to leave his premises or he would shoot him. Kelly told him to lay down his gun, as they could settle their matter in a minute without it, at the same time advancing toward him. They were about forty feet apart when Manny appeared with his gun. Manny, in an excited manner, kept ordering Kelly off, threatening to shoot while Kelly kept advancing toward him, saying repeatedly that he (Manny) would not shoot anybody.
This was continued until Manny pushed him (Kelly) off with the muzzle of the gun, again telling him to leave the place or he would shoot him. Kelly opened his coat and told him he “didn’t think he would shoot anybody.” Manny then stepped back about thirty feet, at the same time remarking that he “would see whether he would shoot or not,” and fired one barrel, which took effect in Kelly’s arm and thigh, and turned him partly around. Manny then fired the other barrel, hitting Kelly in the right leg, and then drew a pistol and walked up to Kelly, telling him that if he did not get off his premises, he would bore a hole through him. Kelly then got into the wagon and was brought to town. He was placed under the care of Dr. Graham, who pronounced him not dangerously hurt. Manny was arrested, and waiving examination, was held to bail in $2,000 to answer the charge of shooting with intent to kill, at the next term of the district court.
We wish to state in connection with this that Charles Payson knew nothing of the affair of the previous evening, when asked by Kelly to go with him, and had no suspicions of anything wrong until they arrived at the brewery.
Arkansas City Traveler, March 12, 1879.
An action has been brought in the District Court by James Kelly vs. Frank Manny, for civil damages, arising from assault with that shot gun.
[JUROR
LIST: MAY TERM OF DISTRICT COURT.]
Arkansas
City Traveler, April 9, 1879
List of jurors drawn to serve at the May term of the District court, in and for Cowley County, Kansas.
NAME TOWNSHIP
H. C. LOOMIS WINFIELD
J. O. VANORSDALL RICHLAND
S. B. ADAMS CRESWELL
W. J. THOMAS TISDALE
C. A. ROBERTS WINFIELD
JAMES CONRAD SHERIDAN
W. L. REYNOLDS DEXTER
J. W. MILLER RICHLAND
M. R. LEONARD CRESWELL
H. J. IRWIN RICHLAND
R. C. HAYWOOD CRESWELL
D. KANTZ OTTER
GEORGE BULL WINFIELD
WM. JENKINS OMNIA
A. TINSMAN TISDALE
A. J. JARVIS RICHLAND
A. J. McCOLLUM ROCK
F. M. VAUGHN CRESWELL
J. W. COTTINGHAM RICHLAND
JARED FISHER LIBERTY
WM. JOHNSON ROCK
WM. MARQUIS RICHLAND
HENRY BRYSON DEXTER
W. W. UNDERWEAR DEXTER
Winfield Courier, April 24, 1879.
The District Court sits a week from next Monday. A full docket of the business before the court will appear in the COURIER next week.
Winfield Courier, May 1, 1879.
The District Court convenes next Monday.
Winfield Courier, May 1, 1879.
Daniel Venater is held “in durance vile” for obtaining a note under false pretenses. Information filed in the district court by Mr. Torrance.
[DISTRICT COURT DOCKET.]
Winfield Courier, May 1, 1879.
The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the May, A. D. 1879, term of the District Court of Cowley County, beginning on the first Monday in May, and have been placed on the Trial Docket in the following order.
FIRST DAY - CRIMINAL DOCKET.
State vs. Charles D. Daniels.
State vis. Charles Adams.
State vs. Frank Manny.
State vs. Francis Small.
State vs. Thomas Gibson.
State vs. John Doe.
SECOND DAY.
State vs. David Creek.
State vs. same.
THIRD DAY - CIVIL DOCKET.
Rachel Lawson vs. Thomas Lawson.
Patrick Harkins vs. David F. Edmonds.
Frank Porter vs. E. W. Coulson et al.
Lucian McMasters vs. Nathan Hughes.
Mercy M. Funk vs. Cynthia Clark et al.
C. C. Harris vs. J. B. Lynn.
Elizabeth Myer vs. Wm. H. Brown et al.
James W. Hamilton vs. J. D. Pryor et al.
Sarah E. Aldrich vs. James A. Kerr et al.
James C. Topliff vs. Patrick Harkins.
Graham & Moffitt vs. Hoenscheidt.
FOURTH DAY.
T. H. Barrett vs. Wm. Parr, adm’r., et al.
Sarah Bates vs. Hiram Bates.
Hawkins, Bird & Co., vs. F. Gallotti & Co.
W. H. H. Maris v. T. W. Gant et al.
Pierpont & Tuttle vs. Lucy Clark et al.
John T. Stewart vs. H. B. Corkins et al.
R. C. Haywood vs. Matthew Chambers et al.
Nancy Rogers vs. O. F. Boyle.
Chicago Lumber Co. vs. J. C. McMullen.
John D. Pryor vs. S. J. Green
M. Brettun vs. J. G. Titus et al.
Mary E. Hayden vs. George W. Hayden.
FIFTH DAY.
Slettauer Bros. & Co., vs. B. E. Johnson.
Chas. F. Bahntge, assignee, vs. C. L. Harter.
M. L. Read vs. Phillip Sipe, et al.
J. C. Fuller vs. James Keith et al.
Claflin, Allen & Co., vs. B. E. Johnson.
James H. Wear & Co., vs. B. E. Johnson.
Frank Bros. vs. B. E. Johnson.
Tootie, Hanna & Co., vs. B. E. Johnson.
R. S. McDonald & Co., vs. B. E. Johnson.
G. W. Bull vs. Joel E. Mack.
C. H. Fargo & Co., vs. B. E. Johnson.
McWilliams, Crook & Co., vs. B. E. Johnson.
SIXTH DAY.
Burrough & Spach vs. Frank Manny.
Tootie, Hanno & Co., vs. B. E. Johnson.
Fortner & Cady vs. E. C. Manning.
W. D. Lester vs. Julia A. Ralston et al.
J. C. McMullen, adm’r., vs. Stephen Johnson.
M. L. Robinson vs. J. M. Midkiff et al.
R. L. Walker vs. C. L. Harter.
Rogers & Sanford vs. C. L. Harter.
C. L. Harter vs. County Commissioners. [4 different cases]
SEVENTH DAY
W. M. Boyer vs. County Commissioners. [4 different cases]
S. M. Jarvis vs. W. D. Anderson.
S. L. Brettun vs. Franklin Lindley.
S. L. Brettun vs. S. C. Winton et al.
S. L. Brettun vs. S. C. Winton et al.
A. W. Graham vs. McKnown et al.
Henry Brandley vs. B. B. Wood et al.
Brooks, Harris & Colves vs. Rudolph Hite.
L. T. Carter vs. George B. Carter.
EIGHTH DAY
J. V. Hilton vs. George W. Childers et al.
J. C. McMullen vs. C. C. Endicott et al.
S. L. Brettun vs. Geo. Easterly et al.
Baxter & Wade vs. C. L. Harter.
Wolf, Cahn & Co. vs. W. O. Graham.
Lewis C. Rice vs. Sarah E. Rice.
S. E. Aldrich vs. E. A. Goodrich et al.
Margaret Somers vs. Patrick Somers.
James Kelly vs. Frank Manny.
Calvin Dean vs. John J. Clark.
S. L. Brettun vs. Wm. Andrew et al.
H. P. Mansfield vs. Estate of W. Q. Mansfield.
NINTH DAY
T. C. Bird vs. H. C. Merrick et al.
S. B. Atkinson vs. Jacob Keffer.
J. A. Myton vs. S. H. Myton et al.
T. S. Parvin vs. J. C. Topliff.
J. C. Fuller vs. Cowley Co. Ag. Society.
C. C. Harris vs. Levi Fluke et al.
W. M. Copeland vs. S. E. Requa et al.
S. L. Brettun vs. J. P. Sallinger et al.
S. L. Brettun vs. E. L. Walker et al.
C. C. Black vs. Wm. H. Weber et al.
Mercy M. Funk vs. Nancy Hager et all.
Michael Harkins vs. W. J. Keffer.
TENTH DAY
Patrick Harkins vs. Sohn Carder et al.
E. M. Theaker vs. R. J. Theaker.
D. F. Kerr vs. City of Winfield.
Moline Plow Co. vs. Lucian F. McMasters.
J. A. Myton vs. H. Brotherton.
Samuel Hoyt vs. O. H. Meigs et al.
Robert Hudson vs. Frances R. Hudson.
Ezekiel Howland vs. Elizabeth P. Wright.
C. C. Harris vs. Barney Shriver.
Charles Earle vs. M. C. Edwards.
David Thompson vs. Nathan Hughes.
Lee H. Geer vs. Victor M. Geer et al.
J. T. Hook, guardian, vs. C. T. Bannister.
Wm. H. Gould vs. Wm. J. Hodgen.
E. S. BEDILION, County Clerk.
Arkansas City Traveler, May 7, 1879.
We will bet a pound of the best bull beef in this market that the suit in the District court of Somers vs. Somers for divorce will not reach trial. Pat. had an offer for the farm last week and came down Saturday night with prayers and promises that enabled him to wind his arm around the neck of the old lady and trot her home. Pat. married seven years ago, but he and Betsey have been out before, this being the annual suit between the parties for divorce.
[DISTRICT
COURT.]
Winfield Courier, May 8, 1879.
The court commenced its session on Monday. His Honor W. P. Campbell presiding. Present: E. S. Bedilion, clerk; C. L. Harter, sheriff; E. S. Torrance, prosecuting attorney, and a full corps of local attorneys.
The docket was called and several cases were disposed of as follows: State vs. Creek. The defendant plead guilty to three indictments for cow stealing. He was returned to the jail to await his sentence.
The following cases were continued.
Mercy M. Funk vs. Cynthia Clark et al.
Sarah E. Aldrich vs. James A. Kerr et al.
Hamilton vs. French.
Lee H. Geer vs. Victor M. Geer et al.
S. L. Brettun vs. J. P. Sallinger et al.
Sherwood vs. Voit.
The following were dismissed.
Chicago Lumber Co. vs. J. C. McMullen.
J. C. Fuller vs. James Keith et al.
Fortner & Cady vs. E. C. Manning.
W. D. Lester vs. Julia A. Ralston et al.
Calvin Dean vs. John J. Clark.
Michael Harkins vs. J. W. Keffer.
Judgment was taken for plaintiff in the following cases in default.
John D. Pryor vs. S. J. Green.
J. M. Brettun vs. G. Titus et al.
J. C. McMullen, adm’r. vs. Stephen Johnson.
M. L. Robinson vs. J. M. Midkiff et al.
S. L. Brettun vs. Franklin Lindley.
S. L. Brettun vs. S. C. Winton et al. [2 cases]
A. W. Graham vs. McKnown et al.
S. E. Aldrich vs. E. A. Goodrich et al.
J. C. Fuller vs. Cowley Co. Ag. Society.
C. C. Harris vs. Levi Fluke et al.
W. M. Copeland vs. S. E. Requa et al.
All civil cases were continued over to next week.
TUESDAY.
State vs. Small, murder, set for Thursday.
State vs. Gibson, rape and incest. Trial commenced, and the testimony showed that the victim’s name was Manda instead of Amanda, as stated in the information. The court refused leave to amend the information at that stage, and the county attorney entered a “nolie,” the prisoner was held to await his action, a new information was made, and a new preliminary examination before Justice Buckman, and he was committed again for trial at this term of the court.
State against Frank Manny, shooting of James Kelly. Trial commenced and the testimony of James Kelly was in progress when the court adjourned for the day.
Arkansas City Traveler, May 14, 1879.
James L. Huey, W. D. Roberts, and W. B. Norman have been appointed by the District Court of Cowley County the committee to condemn the right of way for the Cowley, Sumner & Fort Smith R. R. through this county.
[DISTRICT
COURT.]
Winfield Courier, May 15, 1879.
FRANK
MANNY...
The case of the State vs. Manny occupied the time of the court up to last Friday evening, when the jury brought in a verdict of assault and battery. The punishment is a fine not exceeding $500 and imprisonment not exceeding one year.
Defendant’s counsel gave notice of a motion for a new trial.
STATE VERSUS SMALL FOR THE KILLING OF STARBUCK...
Saturday morning was occupied in impanneling a jury in the case of State vs. Small for the killing of Starbuck. The court adjourned to Monday.
Lucius Knight, of Arkansas City, has been appointed stenographer in the District Court now in session.
Upon Saturday last the trial of Francis Small for the murder of Jacob Starbuck began. At 1 o’clock the court convened at Manning’s Opera Hourse and after examining over sixty the following named gentlemen were chosen to try the case: Jared Fisher, C. A. Roberts, F. M. Vaughn, N. J. Funk, A. J. McCollin, E. Rogers, G. N. Fowler, J. M. Longshore, Harry Bryan, Henry H. Buss, D. N. Mycoff, and John P. Denton.
The first witness examined was Mr. J. W. Hamilton. He said that Mr. Starbuck had bought Mr. Small’s place and it was agreed between them that Starbuck was to have $20 worth of corn the same being a part of the crop then on the farm.
S. M. Jarvis was next called, and after a great deal of “worrying” he was made to say Small had come to him and requested him not to make a loan to Starbuck that was then talked of between Starbuck and him (Jarvis). Small said he wanted to get the farm back from Starbuck and did not want Starbuck to mortgage it. That Starbuck had wronged him—had robbed him of his farm and said “He (Starbuck) must fix the matter up and if he did not, they both could not live.”
Small told him (Jarvis) that unless the matter was fixed up satisfactorily, he would fix him (Starbuck). Witness said that Small seemed angry and out of humor.
Charles Sanders was next called to the stand. Witness said he saw Small on the 14th of February—about one week before the shooting. Small told him that Starbuck had given him notes for his farm and the notes had proven to be worthless. Witness said that he suggested to Small that he (Small) get some of his friends to go and see Starbuck and try and settle the difficulty. Small replied, “It will be of no use. The thing has gone too far. I can’t get rid of him and I have plenty of friends to help me.”
Mrs. Sanders, the wife of last witness, was next called. She remembered seeing Small at their house at the time spoken of by her husband. Small told her he was broke up, and said, “I can’t stand it—I won’t stand it. D m him, he shall lay low.”
Upon cross-examination she said she did not know what Small meant by saying, “He shall lay low,” but that she thought from the manner in which he said it that he meant to kill him.
Oliver Whitehed was the next witness. He lived with his father just across the road from the farm which Small had sold to Starbuck. He saw Starbuck the morning he was shot. Starbuck and his little boy were picking corn. He saw Perry, Small, and Morrow in the same field also picking corn. They were about ten rods from Starbuck. Witness saw Small go up towards Starbuck and pull off his coat. Starbuck put his hand in the breast pocket of his coat and ordered Small to leave the place. Small said, “All right, but I’ll arrest you before night.” Small then went back to his wagon and they all drove off, leaving Starbuck in the field. Witness afterwards saw Small, Perry, Al, Thomas, Ab. Thomas, and Morrow get into a wagon at Morrow’s place and drive over to Starbuck’s field again. He stated that he saw them drive around Starbuck’s wagon and all jump out but two. They had just fairly got out of the wagon when the shot was fired.
The witness seemed a little flustered upon cross examination.
Our
reporter has not “boiled down” the evidence of Reuben Starbuck. His testimony,
together with the substance of all the evidence in the case will appear in our
columns next week.
The trial is progressing slowly and in all probability will last the greater part of this week. Possibly it will consume the entire week.
Arkansas City Traveler, May 21, 1879.
The Small trial for the murder of Starbuck occupied the District Court the whole of last week.
Winfield Courier, May 22, 1879.
Mr. Henry E. Asp made his maiden speech before the District Court, in the Small-Starbuck murder case, last Friday evening. It was a very effective argument, and full of good points. We congratulate Mr. Asp on his success.
[JUDGMENT
RENDERED IN CRIMINAL CASES: DISTRICT COURT.]
Winfield Courier, May 22, 1879.
Judgment was rendered in the criminal cases at the late term of the District Court, as follows.
State vs. Frank Manny: fined $350.
State vs. Francis Small: sentenced to 5 years in the penitentiary at hard labor.
State vs. David Creek: 4 years in the penitentiary.
State vs. Henry Mount: fined $100.
[DISTRICT
COURT: SMALL TRIAL; THE VERDICT.]
Winfield Courier, May 22, 1879.
Saturday morning at 4 o’clock ended the argument in the most closely contested case ever tried in Cowley county. When we went to press last week, the trial of Francis Small for the murder of Jacob Starbuck had reached the examination of Oliver Whitted.
The cross examination of Oliver Whitted was long and searching, and considering the powerful effort of counsel for defense to break him down, he did very well.
The next witness called was Wm. Whitted, the father of Oliver. He said he knew the defendant, and had known Starbuck in his life time. Remembered the circumstance of Starbuck’s death; was at my house on the morning of the day of his death; saw him afterwards in his field and saw Small go towards him and then saw the stalks rustling. I said to my wife that I thought they were having a fight. (Witness used a diagram of the field and explained the position of the parties.) Saw Small go back to his wagon; he was putting on his coat as he went along. The cross-examination brought out nothing new.
Reuben Starbuck was next called. Reuby is a bright, intelligent little fellow, and told his story with a child’s characteristic simplicity. He said Jacob Starbuck was my father; was in the field with him when Mr. Small first came down there. Perry and Morrow were with him, and they were picking up corn.
When we got pretty close together Small came over to pa’s team and told pa to get out of the field. Pa said he was going to have his corn. Small pulled off his overwaist and walked up towards Pa. Pa pulled out his pistol and told him to leave or he would blow the daylights out of him. He then went over to where Perry and Morrow were; saw Small again that day. He came back to the field with Al. Thomas, Ab. Thomas, Morrow, and Perry. They all came from Morrow’s house. Al. Thomas got out of their wagon and came over to speak to Pa. Pa was husking corn on the second row from the wagon. Small, Al. and Ab. Thomas jumped out of their wagon. Perry was in the wagon tying up the lines. Small told Pa to stop husking corn. Pa did not answer him—just kept on husking, and Small shot him. Pa fell down when he was shot; he fell away from the wagon on his face. He did not say anything, he only groaned. Small put his gun in his wagon and started off on a run. Pa’s coat was in a bucket in the front end of our wagon and his revolver was in an inside pocket in the coat. Al. Thomas took the revolver out of Pa’s pocket and said it was a seven-shooter. I drove the team to the house, and Ma and I went back to the field where Pa was lying. Small had left the field. Pa had a peg on his hand and was husking corn when Small shot him. I took the peg off his hand when Ma and I went over there.
Joshua Powers saw Small going over to Ab. Thomas’. Witness said as he passed Morrow’s place, where Small was living, he saw Mrs. Morrow. She had been crying, and said to him, “Mr. Powers, there will be trouble this morning.”
Charles Thomas testified that he was at Al. Thomas’ the morning of the shooting. Saw Small coming very fast on horseback. Small got a shotgun. I asked Al. what was up. He said Starbuck had drawn a revolver on Small that morning, and that Small was going to shoot him. Small called to a little boy and told him he need not get these revolvers, as he had the gun. Al. said, “No, if you shoot him with those loads, he will never squeal but once.” Small got on his pony and said, “It’s Starbuck’s time to run now.” Al. said the loads in the gun were good ones, that he had loaded it for Jake’s boy.
Mrs. Starbuck said Small came to their house and asked her husband to pay him some money. Starbuck told him he shouldn’t lose it, but that he could not pay him then. Small got mad and went out saying, “There will be some other way of settling it.”
Miss Annie Starbuck went down to the field and saw Reuby take off the husking peg from her father’s hand.
Dr. Robert A. Rizing saw Starbuck’s body soon after the shooting. Mr. Krum and I went to the field together. Ab. and A. Thomas were there. Starbuck was lying with his head towards the north and was on his left side. His left arm was under his body. (The doctor made a diagram showing position of wagon track and tracks made by Starbuck, and showing his body across the third row of corn north of the wagon track.)
Starbuck was dead when I first came up to him. An ear of corn was found immediately under his left hand. There was a little blood on it. The wound was just behind the left nipple, covering a space of some four and three-quarter inches. The wound was right over the heart and could not have been other than fatal.
Dr. W. F. Wright made an examination of Starbuck’s body in company with Dr. Rizing. Testimony same in substance as Dr. Rizing’s.
A. J. Crum said he saw Starbuck’s body about 8 o’clock after the shooting. It was lying on the left side with the left arm under the body. The wagon track was one and one-half rows of corn south of Starbuck’s feet.
Ephraim Rockwell said the wagon track south of where the body had laid was about 8 feet from the center of the body. Dr. Rizing stepped the distance and it was two steps and a part of another.
The State rested.
John Perry’s deposition was read for the defense. Witness. Small and Perry went down to Starbuck’s field to get some corn. While at work Starbuck came down. Small went over to him to ask what he meant: heard Starbuck reply, “By G__d, itmeans business.” Starbuck drew his pistol and said to Small, “Now you walk.” Morrow and I told him to arrest Starbuck and Small said he would. Small wanted two loads of corn to get some building material. They all went back to Morrows and Small had got a shotgun. We saw Starbuck at his house out of the field and thought we could get the other load, and that Small could then come to town and arrest Starbuck. Small took the gun, saying he did not want to go back without anything to defend himself with. Going down to the field they all saw Starbuck returning. They held a consultation, and finally Al. Thomas said he would go down and see Starbuck, as they had always been friendly; thought he could arrange things. Al. then went over; did not hear was said, but supposed everything was all right. Morrow and Small got out and went to husking corn. Heard Al. say to Starbuck, “For God’s sake, don’t,” and Starbuck say, “D__n him.” Starbuck rushed forward and they all saw him get his revolver. Small then reached and got his gun. Starbuck raised his revolver a little and Small fired.
William Morrow testified the same as Perry substantially.
Ab. Thomas testified same as last two witnesses. He denied telling Charley Thomas that the gun Small got was loaded by him for Jake’s boy, but admitted on cross-examination that it was a fact; said Small came to his house and got the gun.
Al. Thomas corroborated the testimony of the last three witnesses from first to last.
W. H. Clay, Preston, Martin, J. W. Thomas, Jacob Berkhart, James Jackson, George Whitted, and R. H. Morrow gave Small general reputation as a peaceable, quiet, law-abiding citizen. They all said it was good.
Francis Small told the same story that was told by the last named witnesses, and claimed that Starbuck had wronged him and cheated him out of his farm by giving him a worthless note for it, representing that it was good.
This is in brief an outline of the evidence given in the case.
The argument of the case occupied all of Friday night, Mr. Torrance closing his speech at 4 o’clock in the morning.
The charge given to the jury was remarkably clear and reflected the highest credit upon Judge Campbell.
Henry Asp opened the argument. He occupied one hour and fifteen minutes. He made his pointts well and presented his theory of the affair very forcibly. This was Henry’s first talk to a jury in the District Court, and he made a splendid effort.
Mr. Hackney made an excellent speech. It was the finest effort thus far in Will’s professional life. The same may be said of Judge McDonald’s argument, while Torrance simply did nobly. The arguments of all the gentlemen were first class. A gentleman outside said, “When Asp made his speech, it looked plain that Small was guilty of a cold-blooded murder; when Hackney had finished, he thought it was awful doubtful; by the time McDonald had finished, he thought Small ought to be acquitted. But Torrance began to make the thing look dark again for Small, and before he closed his talk he made up his mind again that Small was guilty as h__l.”
The jury came in Saturday evening with a verdict of guilty of manslaughter in the second degree.
Motion for a new trial was overruled. Judge Campbell reviewed the testimony and made his criticisms freely and plainly. His review was remarkable. He said the defendant ought to have been convicted of murder in the first degree, and declined to entertain the plea of clemency interposed by Judge McDonald for the defendant. He sentenced Small to confinement at hard labor in the penitentiary for the longest term that he could under the verdict—five years.
Arkansas City Traveler, June 4, 1879.
Judgment was rendered in the criminal cases at the late term of the District Court as follows:
STATE VS. FRANK MANNY: fined $350.
STATE VS. FRANCIS SMALL: sentenced to 5 years in the penitentiary at hard labor.
STATE VS. DAVID CREEK: 4 years in the penitentiary.
STATE VS. HENRY MOUNT: fined $100.
Winfield Courier, June 5, 1879.
A Mr. Tower, of Ninnescah township, was arrested for committing a rape on his 10 year old stepdaughter last week, and was committed for trial at the next term of the district court. This business is getting a little too frequent, and some means should be devised to put a stop to it. Only a few evenings ago a respectable young lady of this city was insulted on the street by some beast, and it is hardly safe for a lady to be out alone after sun down. The two brutes now confined in the county jail should receive the full penalty of the law if guilty.
Arkansas City Traveler, June 18, 1879.
The committee appointed by the District Court to condemn the right of way through Cowley County, for the Cowley, Sumner and Fort Smith R. R., will commence work this week between Arkansas City and Winfield.
Winfield Courier, August 14, 1879.
Mr. C. C. Adams, of Illinois, has lately visited this county and city, with a view of making investments. He is an energetic businessman, of large capital, and is highly esteemed by a wide circle of acquaintances, several of whom are residents of this county. Last Saturday he was in Winfield, and while conversing on the street, the handle of a small revolver was seen sticking out of a pocket in his pants. Marshal Stevens, whose eyes are always open, promptly arrested him and took him before Police Judge Boyer, where he was fined and mulcted in costs, which together amounted to about $13.00, for carrying concealed weapons. He refused to pay—appealed, and will test the case against him in the District Court. We do not know but the ordinance was meant for such cases; but if so, it ought to be repealed at once. These proceedings in such a case are an outrage that should never be allowed. A stranger comes here to settle and invest, and while traveling in sections reputed to be infested with roughs and robbers, takes the precaution to carry a small revolver as a protection against scoundrels, as is quite customary; and is met with the very acts which will disgust him most with the country and its people.
[THE
JURORS FOR NEXT TERM OF DISTRICT COURT.]
Winfield Courier, August 21, 1879.
The following is the list of Jurors drawn to serve at the next term of the District Court, which convenes next Monday.
Isaac Gatton, Sheridan township.
J. P. Mussulman, Silverdale.
M. Eilinger, Tisdale.
F. M. Osborn, Cedar.
Johnson Chandler, Silvercreek.
John Lintin, Bolton.
A. E. Klesey, Rock.
J. F. Tucker, Windsor.
R. Eastman, Sheridan.
C. W. Frith, Liberty.
Nelson Peters, Richland.
J. F. Teter, Silvercreek.
S. G. Caston, Liberty.
L. J. Davidson, Sheridan.
Page Asbury, Dexter.
Jas. Dalton, Beaver.
J. M. Hooker, Richland.
Oliver Brubaker, Dexter.
M. B. Hennon, Silver Creek.
E. A. Henser, Rock.
O. J. Palmer, Bolton.
Adrian Williamson, Rock.
[DISTRICT
COURT CALENDAR - AUGUST TERM.]
Winfield Courier, August 21, 1879.
(Commencing Monday, Aug. 25, 1879.)
FIRST
DAY - CRIMINAL DOCKET. [STATE OF KANSAS VERSUS _______.]
STATE
ATTORNEY: E. S. TORRANCE.
DEFENDANT LAWYER(S)
Chas
D. Daniels Hackney
& McDonald
Dan’l.
Venator C.
H. Payson
Thos.
Gibson J.
McDermott
Jno.
Punkard
James
Powers
Isaac
White
George
Paris Hackney
& McDonald
SECOND
DAY - CIVIL DOCKET.
Rachel
Lawson C.
H. Payson
vs.
Thos.
Lawson Hackney
& McDonald
Patrick
Harkins L.
J. Webb
vs.
David
F. Edmonds Hackney
& McDonald
Frank
Porter J.
E. Allen
vs.
Eli
W. Coulson Hackney
& McDonald
C.
C. Harris Hackney
& McDonald
vs.
Sanford
Day, et. al. J.
McDermott
Mercy
M. Funk Hackney
& McDonald
vs.
Cynthia
Clark, et. al. J.
McDermott
C.
C. Harris Hackney
& McDonald
vs.
J.
B. Lynn Allen
and Torrance
J.
W. Hamilton C.
H. Payson
vs.
John
D. Pryor Hackney
& McDonald
Sarah
E. Aldrich Pryor
& Pryor
vs.
James
A. Kerr, et. al.
James
C. Topliff Hackney
& McDonald
vs.
Patrick
Harkins Webb
and Pryor & Pryor
T.
H. Barrett Black
and Webb
vs.
Wm.
Parr, adm’r. Hackney
& McDonald
W.
H. H. Maris Pyburn
and Boyer, Jennings &
vs. Buckman.
T.
W. Gant, et. al. Pryor
& Pryor, Webb.
P.
J. Tuttle Pryor
& Pryor
vs.
Lucy
Clark, et. al. Jennings
& Buckman.
THIRD
DAY.
R.
C. Haywood C.
R. Mitchell
vs.
Matt.
Chambers, et. al. Hackney
& McDonald
Nancy
Rogers L.
J. Webb, Pryor & Pryor
vs.
O.
M. Boyle Hackney
& McDonald
Slattauer
Bros. & Co. Hackney
& McDonald
vs.
B.
E. Johnson Coldwell
& C. Webb
C.
F. Bahntge, assn’e. Coldwell
& C. Webb
vs.
C.
L. Harter Hackney
& McDonald
M. L. Read Hackney & McDonald
vs.
Phillip
Sipe L.
J. Webb
G.
W. Bull E.
S. Torrance
vs.
Joel
E. Mack Hackney
& McDonald
Burrough
& Spache C.
H. Payson
vs.
Frank
Manny Hackney
& McDonald
Richard
L. Walker Coldwell
& Coldwell, Webb
vs.
Charles
L. Harter Hackney
& McDonald and
Torrance.
C.
L. Harter C.
H. Payson.
vs.
County
Commissioners. E.
S. Torrance.
NOTE: THERE WERE FOUR CASES LISTED FOR CHARLES L. HARTER VERSUS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
FOURTH DAY.
W. M. Boyer C. H. Payson
vs.
County Commissioners. E. S. Torrance.
NOTE: THERE WERE FOUR CASES LISTED FOR W. M. BOYER VERSUS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
S. M. Jarvis C. H. Payson
vs.
W. D. Anderson Jennings & Buckman
Henry Brandley Charles Wilsie
vs.
B. B. Wood, et. al. Hackney & McDonald
Linanna T. Carter J. M. Alexander
vs.
Geo. B. Carter
Lewis C. Rice Hackney & McDonald
vs.
Sarah E. Rice
James Kelly F. S. Jennings
vs.
Frank Manny Hackney & McDonald
H. P. Mansfield Torrance & Asp
vs.
Est. W. Q. Mansfield McDermott, Alexander.
Thos. C. Baird Pryor & Pryor
vs.
H. C. Merrick, et. al. C. R. Mitchell
FIFTH DAY.
S. B. Atkinson C. H. Payson
vs.
W. J. Keffer
J. A. Myton Torrance, Alexander.
vs.
S. H. Myton Hackney & McDonald
Thos. S. Parvin Torrance & Asp
vs.
James C. Topliff Hackney & McDonald
S. L. Brettun C. C. Black
vs.
Jacob P. Sallinger
Mercy M. Funk Hackney & McDonald
vs.
Nancy Hager, et. al. R. S. Torrance
Patrick Harkins Pryor & Pryor
vs.
John Carder, et. al. C. R. Mitchell
E. M. Theaker C. R. Mitchell
vs.
Robert J. Theaker
Daniel F. Kerr Hackney & McDonald
vs.
City of Winfield O. M. Seward
Moline Plow Co. Pyburn and Boyer
vs.
L. F. McMaster
J. A. Myton Alexander, Torrance.
vs.
H. Brotherton Hackney & McDonald
Robert Hudson Torrance & Asp.
vs.
Francis R. Hudson
SIXTH DAY.
Ezekiel Howland C. B. Mitchell
vs.
E. B. Wright P. & P. and H. & McD.
C. C. Harris Hackney & McDonald
vs.
Barney Shirver E. S. Torrance
Chris Earle James Christian
vs.
M. C. Edwards C. B. Mitchell
David Thompson James Christian
vs.
Nathan Hughes C. B. Mitchell
Lee H. Geer Hackney & McDonald
vs.
Victor M. Geer, et. al.
F. C. Wise E. S. Torrance
vs.
Cyreneus Castanien Jennings & Buckman
J. W. Hamilton C. H. Payson
vs.
Sophia V. French Christian, Torrance
J. K. O. Sherwood J. E. Allen
vs.
Hubert Voit, et. al.
J. T. Hook, guardian Jennings & Buckman
vs.
C. F. Bannister C. H. Payson
W. H. Gould L. J. Webb
vs.
Wm. J. Hodges C. H. Payson
John A. Tipton J. E. Allen
vs.
J. H. Finch Hackney & McDonald
N. P. McKee J. M. Alexander
vs.
Emanuel Showers
SEVENTH DAY.
Aleena Parsons, et. al. E. S. Torrance
vs.
John Brooks J. M. Alexander
Sam’l Hoyt C. R. Mitchell
vs.
L. W. Courier S. Knight
James F. Paul Graham and Webb
vs.
J. Wade McDonald Hackney & McDonald
Wm. Breck A. J. Pyburn
vs.
T. J. Harris, et. al.
M. L. Read Hackney & McDonald
vs.
W. W. Brown E. S. Torrance
S. M. Martin Hackney & McDonald
vs.
J. C. McMullin E. S. Torrance
Henry S. Ireton J. M. Alexander
vs.
C. S. & F. S. railroad A. J. Pyburn
T. D. Lewis J. E. Allen
vs.
Francis A. Bailey
T. D. Lewis J. E. Allen
vs.
Antoinette Manara
EIGHTH DAY.
James Jordan Pryor & Pryor
vs.
C. S. & F. S. railroad A. J. Pyburn
Charles Coleman Payson
vs.
C. S. & F. S. railroad A. J. Pyburn
F. W. Schwantes Hackney & McDonald
vs.
C. S. & F. S. railroad A. J. Pyburn
NOTE: THERE WERE TWO CASES THAT SCHWANTES HAD VERSUS RAILROAD.
R. B. Waite Pryor & Pryor
vs.
C. S. & F. S. railroad A. J. Pyburn
NOTE: THERE WERE TWO CASES THAT WAITE HAD VERSUS RAILROAD.
Victor M. Geer, et. al. Hackney & McDonald
vs.
C. S. & F. S. railroad A. J. Pyburn
W. H. Carpenter A. J. Pyburn
vs.
Michael H. Mount
Albert Hughes J. E. Allen
vs.
Frank Galleth
Thomas D. Lewis J. E. Allen
vs.
T. H. Geuthuer M. G. Troup
J. C. Phillips Torrance & Asp
vs.
Phillip Stout Hackney & McDonald
David Hitchcock L. J. Webb
vs.
Elizabeth Dever, et. al. Alexander, H. & McD.
NINTH DAY.
Hannah F. Gorn A. J. Pyburn
vs.
Daniel Venator
Joel E. Cox Hackney & McDonald
vs.
Mary J. Cox Jennings & Buckman
S. Frazee L. J. Webb
vs.
John Frazee
Field, Leiter & Co. Guthrie & Brown and
vs. J. McDermott.
Turner Bros. Hackney & McDonald
Sarah J. Ratliff Hackney & McDonald
vs.
John Ratliff
B. Dunwood, adm. Troup and Hudson
vs.
M. J. Parr, et. al.
Chicago Lumber Co. Hackney & McDonald
vs.
Creswell & Bolton townships
M. E. Bolton J. E. Allen
vs.
Caroline C. Arnold
William Storms Torrance & Asp
vs.
G. S. Story
T. & F. Organ Co. Hackney & McDonald
vs.
C. T. Smith
John Smiley L. J. Webb
vs.
Harry Bahntge Jennings & Buckman
Oleda Bentley J. E. Allen
vs.
James Bentley
TENTH DAY.
W. A. Redmon Jennings & Buckman
vs.
L. C. Harter, et. al.
S. L. Brettun Black and Beach
vs.
Foster Hayworth
J. C. McMullen Pryor & Pryor
vs.
S. T. Endicott C. R. Mitchell
Medaris & Hills C. R. Mitchell
vs.
Kendall & Smith
John Farber Black and Beach
vs.
Alfred Knox
S. Weil L. J. Webb
vs.
August Kadau J. M. Alexander
Carson, Peoria & Co. Torrance & Asp
vs.
John W. Johnston L. J. Webb
In the matter of the survey of Hackney & McDonald
section 28, township 32, range 5.
Lewis C. Harter
vs.
W. L. Mullen E. S. Torrance
James Christian James Christian
vs.
John Carder
[ATTORNEY CARDS.]
Winfield Courier, August 28, 1879.
ALBERT P. JOHNSON.
Office in Manning’s building, corner Main Street and 9th Avenue.
W. W. PERKINS,
Room 1, Page Building.
LELAND J. WEBB,
Office upstairs, Room 3, in Bahntge Bros. building, corner Main street and 10th avenue.
CHAS. C. BLACK,
Office west side Main street, upstairs, between 8th and 9th avenues.
A. H. GREEN,
ATTORNEY AT LAW, and REAL ESTATE AGENT, Winfield, Kansas.
JOHN E. ALLEN,
Office 9th avenue, next door east of E. E. Bacon’s jewelry store.
CHARLES H. EAGIN, Rock, Cowley County, Kansas.
JAMES McDERMOTT, Office in Stone Building, 9th avenue.
R. S. GRAHAM, Room 2, Page building, Winfield, Kansas.
GILBERT & JARVIS, REAL ESTATE AND LOAN AGENTS,
[S. L. GILBERT, NOTARY PUBLIC/S. M. JARVIS, ATT. AT LAW.]
Office upstairs in Bahntge’s new block, Winfield, Kansas.
JAMES CHRISTIAN,
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW, Arkansas City, Cowley County, Kansas. Judge of the Police Court, Justice of the Peace, Notary Public and Land Agent; also, Agent for the Home Insurance Company of New York, and Phoenix of Hartford Conn. Will attend promptly to all business in his line. Oldest practicing lawyer in Kansas. Charges moderate. [NO ADDRESS GIVEN.]
COLDWELL & COLDWELL [C. COLDWELL/N. C. COLDWELL],
Bahntge Building, South Main Street, Winfield, Kansas.
CHAS. H. PAYSON,
ATTORNEY AT LAW. Business in State and Federal Courts promptly attended to. Collections solicited and Abstracts prepared. Office upstairs in Manning’s Brick Building, corner Main Street and 9th Avenue, Winfield, Kansas.
PRYOR & PRYOR [S. D. PRYOR/J. D. PRYOR],
ATTORNEYS AT LAW and Notaries Public, Winfield, Kansas. Will practice law in Cowley and adjoining counties. NO ADDRESS GIVEN.
O. M. SEWARD,
ATTORNEY AT LAW. Will practice in the State and Federal Courts, and promptly attend to all Legal Business entrusted to his care.
Office over McCommon & Harter’s Drug Store, Winfield, Kansas.
E. S. TORRANCE, ATTORNEY AT LAW.
Office upstairs in Manning’s Brick Block, Winfield, Kansas.
JENNINGS & BUCKMAN [F. S. JENNINGS/G. H. BUCKMAN].
ATTORNEYS AT LAW. Business in State and Federal Courts solicited. Collections promptly attended to. Legal instrumeents carefully made out.
Office over Read’s Bank, Winfield, Kansas.
J. M. ALEXANDER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, has money to loan on real estate, and will buy claims, notes, mortgages, etc. At stone office, east of post office, on 9th avenue, Winfield, Kansas.
[COURT
NOTES.]
Winfield Courier, August 28, 1879.
The District Court convened Monday afternoon, of last week, and the following cases were disposed of upon call of the Docket.
State of Kansas vs. Isaac White. Plead guilty of grand larceny.
James Kelly vs. Frank Manny. Defendant made application for change of venue.
State of Kansas vs. Hoffman. Plead guilty of grand larceny.
Rachel Lawson vs. Thos. Lawson. Judgment.
T. H. Barrett vs. Wm. Parr, adm’r. Settled.
Continued:
Frank Porter vs. Eli W. Coulson.
C. C. Harris vs. Sanford Day.
Mercy M. Funk vs. Cynthia Clark, et. al.
C. C. Harris vs. J. B. Lynn.
S. B. Atkinson vs. W. J. Keffer. [And leave to answer.]
C. C. Harris vs. Barney Shriver.
Henry S. Ireton vs. C. S. & F. S. railroad.
James Jordan vs. C. S. & F. S. railroad.
Charles Coleman vs. C. S. & F. S. railroad.
R. B. Waite vs. C. S. & F. S. railroad. [2 cases]
John Smiley vs. Harry Bahntge. [And leave to answer.]
State of Kansas vs. Dan’l. Ventor.
Dismissed:
Wm. Brock vs. T. J. Harris, et. al. Settled.
R. L. Walker, et. al. vs. J. C. McMullin.
F. W. Schwantes vs. C. S. & F. S. railroad. [2 cases.]
Victor M. Geer, et. al. vs. C. S. & F. S. railroad.
State of Kansas vs. Chas. D. Daniels.
S. Weil vs. August Kadau.
The case of the State of Kansas vs. Thos. Gibson, charged with the crime of incest, was taken up on Tuesday morning. As we go to press, the jury is still out.
In the case of Harkins vs. Edmonds, Judgment vacated.
Winfield Courier, October 16, 1879.
Perry Simcox and George Crabbs, of Pleasant Valley township, were arrested and brought before Judge Boyer last week, charged with burglarizing the house of C. C. Pierce. They were bound over in the sum of $1,000 to appear at the next term of the District Court. The evidence was purely circumstantial.
[BAR
DOCKET, COWLEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT DECEMBER TERM.]
Winfield
Courier, November 27, 1879.
CRIMINAL
DOCKET:
State vs. Charles C. Daniels.
State vs. Daniel Venator.
State vs. Thomas Gibson.
State vs. John H. McMahon.
State vs. P. Simcox & G. Crabbe.
State vs. Frank Schock.
I SKIPPED THE CIVIL DOCKET.
Arkansas City Traveler, December 3, 1879.
District
Court Docket.
The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the December term, A. D. 1879, of the District Court of Cowley county, and have been placed on the Trial Docket, in the following order.
CRIMINAL
DOCKET, FIRST DAY.
STATE
VERSUS
Charles D. Daniels
Daniel Vanator
Thos. Gibson
John McMahon
Perry Simcox, et al
Chas. H. Payson
Frank Schock
CIVIL DOCKET, SECOND DAY.
Patrick Harkins vs D. F. Edmonds.
Frank Porter vs E. W. Coulson, et al.
C. C. Harris vs Sanford Day.
Mercy M. Funk vs Cynthia Clark.
C. C. Harris vs J. B. Lynn.
J. W. Hamilton vs J. D. Pryor et al.
S. E. Aldrich vs J. A. Kerr et al.
W. H. H. Maris vs. T. W. Gant.
Pierpont & Tuttle vs L. Clark, et al.
Nancy Rogers vs O. F. Boyle.
S. M. Jarvis vs W. D. Anderson.
James Kelly vs Frank Manny.
T. C. Bird vs H. C. Merrick et al.
S. B. Atkinson vs Jacob Keffer.
J. A. Myton vs S. H. Myton et al.
S. L. Bretton vs Jacob Sallinger et al.
Elizabeth Theaker vs R. J. Theaker.
Ezekiel Howland vs E. P. Wright.
THIRD
DAY.
C. C. Harris vs Barney Shriver.
Lee H. Geer vs V. M. Geer et al.
J. W. Hamilton vs S. V. French.
J. A. Tipton vs J. H. Finch.
James Napier vs Samuel Thompson
H. S. Ireton vs C S & Ft. S RR Co.
James Gordon vs C S & Ft. S RR Co.
Charles Coleman vs C S & Ft. S RR Co.
R. B. Waite vs C S & Ft. S RR Co.
J. C. Phillips vs Phillip Stout.
H. F. Gore vs D. Vanator et al.
J. E. Cox vs M. J. Cox.
Field, Leiter & Co. vs Turner Bros.
S. J. Ratliff vs John Ratliff.
M. F. Bolton vs C. Arnold et al.
Wm. Storms vs Geo Story.
J. Smiley et al vs Harry Bahntge.
DID NOT CONTINUE.
[COURT
DOCKET.]
Winfield Courier, January 8, 1880.
The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the adjourned December, 1879 term of the district court, beginning on Monday, the 15th day of January, 1880.
CRIMINAL
DOCKET. - 1st day.
State vs. Frank Schock.
State vs. Daniel O’Leary.
State vs. Fames Fahey.
State vs. Charles H. Payson.
AMONG THE CIVIL DOCKETS....
C. C. Harris vs. Sanford Day et. al.
C. C. Harris vs. J. B. Lynn.
W. H. H. Maris vs. T. W. Gant et. al.
James Kelly vs. Frank Manny.
T. C. Bird vs. H. C. Merrick et al.
J. A. Myton vs. S. H. Myton et. al.
Hackney & McDonald vs. T. E. Reed.
J. L. Burkey vs. A. T. & S. F. R. R. Co.
MANY MORE...I SKIPPED.
Winfield Courier, January 8, 1880.
Court meets Monday in Manning’s Hall.
Winfield Courier, January 8, 1880.
Henry, one of the cattle thieves, was tried last week and bound over to the District Court. Rhonimus’ trial was postponed to the 23rd inst.
[ISAAC
J. HENRY: NORTH END MEAT MARKET CASE.]
Winfield Courier, January 15, 1880.
The District Court convened on Tuesday. Judge Campbell was detained at Wichita to finish up a criminal case on trial in that city, and had not arrived, therefore, the members of the bar elected J. Wade McDonald, Judge pro tem., who proceeded to try the case of the State vs. Isaac J. Henry, known as the North End Meat Market case. Torrance appeared for the prosecution and C. H. Payson for the defense. The case was ably conducted and resulted in the acquittal of the defendant. Mr. Payson’s plea before the jury is spoken of as a very able argument and one of the finest oratorical efforts that have been presented in our courts.
[DISTRICT
COURT.]
Winfield Courier, January 22, 1880.
The court has been occupied for most of the past week in the trial of Shock for the assault with dangerous weapon on Foster. J. Wade McDonald has occupied the bench, Torrance has managed the prosecution, and W. W. Perkins the defense. The testimony closed Saturday night. On Monday Judge McDonald gave a long and able charge to the jury and Torrance opened the argument for the prosecution, closing a very able effort with the session for the day. Tuesday the argument for the defense was given by W. W. Perkins, and was a powerful forensic effort.
The case was submitted to the jury on Tuesday and on Wednesday morning they brought in a verdict of guilty of assault with intent to kill. This will subject Shock to a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.
[J.
M. ALEXANDER WRITES “PENNY WISE AND POUND FOOLISH.”]
Winfield Courier, February 5, 1880.
ED. COURIER: I think no one will accuse me of indulging in extravagance in my own affairs, or of advising, or approving the same in others. But all good businessmen will bear me out in the assertion that there are times and places in the affairs of every business individual when a dollar, rightly invested, will make, or save, ten for the investor.
What would we think of a householder owning a house needing repairs, who, instead of repairing it, would vacate it, and rent a house of his neighbor to live in? We should naturally think the man needed a guardian. Well, in all the business relations of life, the same rules that govern the life of the businessman apply to the affairs of corporations, municipal, as well as private.
I have been led to these reflections by the foolish, I might say almost criminal, negligence of our Board of County Commissioners in the policy it pursues in reference to the condition of our Courthouse. Individuals, pursuing the same line of policy in their personal and private afffairs, would be stigmatized as improvident and shiftless. And yet, our Commissioners are only improvident and shiftless in their public capacity. As individuals, working for their own private interests, they are all honest, thrifty, and responsible. They are also highly respectable, and first class as neighbors and citizens.
They were elected by their constitutents because they were good men, and the people had a right to believe that the interests of the county would fare as well in their hands as their own private interests. That such has not been the case will be admitted by every sensible person, when the present condition of county matters are once understood.
Look at the condition of our courthouse. When its unsafe condition was first made public, I, with others, was incredulous, and thought that, perhaps, the report was invented in order to give someone a job, or to satisfy somebody’s personal convenience. But after our own citizen architect, Mr. Hoenscheidt, and a celebrated architect from abroad, Mr. Bartlett, had examined the courthouse and pronounced it unsafe in its present condition; and after learning from our District Court Clerk, Mr. Bedilion, that he had experimented with measures, and found that the walls were gradually spreading, I became convinced that something ought to be done immediately to make the building a safe one to occupy.
Judge Campbell will not hold the District Court in it, and the county is now paying Manning from $360 to $400 a year for his Opera House to hold the court in. Here is economy with a vengeance! But this is not the worst feature of it. The courthouse, unre-paired, is a death-trap in which the lives of our county officers are liable at any moment to be sacrificed. It is true, the structure might stand for years as it is. So might the Tay bridge, but it didn’t; and how long brick walls may stand, that are gradually and surely spreading, the Lord only knows. I know this: that, if the courthouse should fall and destroy a single human life, I should thank my God that I was not one of the respectable and responsible Board of County Commissioners.
To repair the courthouse, means to make it better than it ever has been, and to enlarge it to meet the progressive demands of the county. It means, also, to provide a receptacle for the records of the county. And it can be done at an expense, trifling to the county; at an increase of taxes that might cover to the individual the cost of a single plug of tobacco. Yet, the Honorable Board plod along undisturbed, as though the county was too poor to own a respectable building, and pay out every year for rent enough to pay the interest on a much larger sum than would be necessary to make the courthouse what it should be.
Only think of it. The great county of Cowley—the banner county of the state—un-surpassed in her increase of population, her agricultural and horticultural productions; her superior standard of schools, education, intelligence, and refinement; with two railroads and the prospect of more; with a courthouse that could be built today for the paltry sum of $3,000, and in a shabby, tumble-down condition, which ought to bring the blush of shame to every citizen of the county. If the County Board believe that the people of the county prefer the “Penny Wise and Pound Foolish” manner in which this courthouse policy is con-ducted, I, for one, hope the Board is mistaken. Respectfully, J. M. ALEXANDER.
[REPORT
FROM “L. J. N.” AT NORTH RICHLAND.]
Winfield Courier, February 5, 1880.
A law suit has just closed before N. J. Larkin between J. W. Meador and John Stalter. Warner was attorney for Meador and L. J. Webb for Stalter. The defendant, not being satisfied with the decision, appealed to the District Court.
[INDIAN
TERRITORY: HISTORY, ETC.]
Arkansas
City Traveler, Wednesday, February 18, 1880. Front Page.
RECAP: FOR SOME TIME SOMEONE CALLING HIMSELF “COWLEY” HAS BEEN WRITING ARTICLES TO THE TRAVELER RE EVENTS IN CONGRESS. THUS FAR I HAVE SKIPPED THESE ARTICLES, WHICH ARE INTERESTING AND FAR-REACHING. BUT AT THIS POINT IN TIME I THINK IT PERTINENT TO PRINT PART OF THE PRESENT CORRESPONDENCE FROM “COWLEY.”
“PUNISHMENT OF CRIME IN THE INDIAN TERRITORY.
“The House Committee on Indian affairs have agreed upon the terms of the bill to provide for the punishment of crime in the Indian Territory. At the meeting of the Committee on Friday morning Chairman Scales was instructed to report it to the House. It provides that the laws of the respective States and Territories in which are located Indian reservations, relating to the crimes of murder, manslaughter, arson, rape, burglary, and robbery, shall be deemed and taken to be the law and in force within such reservations; and the district courts of the United States within and for the respective districts in which such reservations may be located in any State, and the territorial courts of the respective territories in which such reservations may be located shall have original jurisdiction over all such offenses which may be committed within such reservations.
“In respect to all that portion of the Indian Territory not set apart and occupied by the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole Indian Tribes, the provisions of the laws of the State of Kansas relating to the crimes of murder, manslaughter, arson, rape, burglary, and robbery shall be deemed and taken to be the law and in force therein; and the United States district court for the western district of the State of Kansas, at Fort Scott, shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all such offenses arising in said portion of the Indian Territory. The place of punishment of any and all said offenses shall be the same as for other like offenses arising within the jurisdiction of said respective courts.”
[COWLEY
DISTRICT COURT.]
Winfield Courier, February 19, 1880.
The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the adjourned December, A. D. 1879, term of the district court of Cowley county, beginning on the 4th Monday, February 23, 1880, and have been placed on the trial docket in the following order.
CRIMINAL DOCKET. - First Day.
State vs. Daniel O’Leary.
State vs. James Fahey.
State vs. Charles H. Payson [2 cases].
State vs. Richard Rhonimous [2 cases].
State vs. Williams James.
State vs. James Moore et al.
CIVIL DOCKET. - Second Day.
Mercy M. Funk vs. Cynthia Clark et al.
W. H. H. Maris vs. T. W. Gant et al.
J. A. Myton vs. S. H. Myton et al.
John A. Tipton vs. James H. Finch.
J. C. Phillips vs. Phillip Sout.
Field, Leiter & Co. vs. Turner Brothers.
THIRD DAY.
William Storms vs. George Storry.
John W. Smiley et al vs. Harry Bhantge.
Matter of survey Sec 28 Tp 32 R 4 E.
Chicago Lumber Co. vs. T. A. Wilkinson et al.
Simpson & Stewart vs. M. E. Church.
Hackney & McDonald vs. Thomas E. Reed.
FOURTH DAY.
John Pittinger vs. Samuel B. Atkinson et al.
Wilson K. Taylor vs. Emma Copeland et al.
Godfrey S. Manser vs. Edward J. Tribbe et al.
Francis Sallee vs. William Sallee.
Clark Bryant vs. William A. Lee et al.
R. C. Holland vs. M. H. Marcum.
S. W. Chatterson vs. L. K. Meyers.
E. S. BEDILION, Clerk
[C.
C. BLACK - LAW OFFICE.]
Winfield Courier, February 19, 1880.
The law office of C. C. Black has been removed to the second story of the stone building on Main Street and Ninth Avenue.
Winfield Courier, March 4, 1880.
Last Saturday Mrs. McNeil brought suit against Charles H. Payson for obtaining a deed under false pretences. The case was rather a mixed-up affair, and there is no knowing how it will terminate. Mr. Payson was bound over to the district court in the sum of $2,000, and in default of bail was committed to jail.
[THE
PAYSON CASE: C. H. PAYSON.]
Winfield
Courier, May 13, 1880.
Probably no case was ever tried in this county which has created so much interest as the trial of C. H. Payson, just terminated with the verdict of guilty in the District Court. After the verdict large squads of men were gathered on each corner discussing it with much warmth, and cricizing scathingly those who took part in the trial either as witnesses, attorneys, jury, or judge. The majority seemed to sympathize strongly with Payson; eulogized his plea in his own defense as one of the best forensic efforts ever heard; thought that though Payson was probably guilty of something bad, he was not guilty of the offense charged in the indictment; and that if he was guilty of another offense, the prosecuting witness was equally guilty of the same offense. They criticize tthe county attorney for being too zealous in the prosecution; and the judge as acting as prosecuting attorney, and ruling out evidence supposed to be favorable to Payson. The minority seemed to be equally sure that Payson was guilty as charged, and had been given a fair trial; that Torrance had done his whole duty and nothing more; that the judge was fair and impartial; and that the jury could not have done otherwise than it did.
The new jury of the whole public will probably never be able to agree.
[THE
PAYSON CASE: TRIAL OF CHAS. H. PAYSON.]
Winfield Courier, May 13, 1880.
The trial of Chas. H. Payson, for obtaining property under false pretenses, terminated last Monday by the jury bringing in a verdict of guilty. While this case was pending, we carefully avoided saying anything that would tend to prejudice the minds of our readers for or against the unfortunate victim; but now that the matter has been fully tried, a verdict rendered, and the case no longer before the jury and court, we shall attempt a review of the testimony and facts pertaining to the prosecution and conviction.
On or about the 26th of January, Mr. Payson filed for record a deed from Lena McNeil to himself, conveying certain real estate known as the “Curns property.” This deed he claimed to have obtained for services rendered in the trial of Dick Rhonimus (a brother of Mrs. McNeil who was then in jail charged with stealing cattle), and for legal services to be rendered during the year. Soon after obtaining the deed, he mortgaged the property to James Jordan for $480, and subsequently sold it to G. H. Buckman, subject to the mortgage, for $200. About this time Rhonimus escaped from jail, and soon after Payson was arrested for obtaining the deed under false pretenses, and after a preliminary examination, was remanded to jail until this term of the district court.
At this trial the examination was full and searching, every effort being put forward by the prosecution and the defense. Mrs. McNeil, and her daughter, Lena, testified that their intention was to convey the property to Mrs. McNeil, and that Payson produced and read to them a deed making such conveyance; but afterward, while going from Mrs. McNeil’s house to the notary public’s office, substituted another conveying the property to himself, which was signed and acknowledged by Lena upon his representation.
These are the facts as gleaned from the evidence; and in our opinion, the jury brought in a verdict in accordance, as they were sworn to do, “with the law and evidence in the case,” but from an outside standpoint, we regard the matter in a very different light, and are free to say that we believe Mrs. McNeil to be as deep in the mud as Payson is in the mire.
If the information in this case had been quashed, as the court at first intimated it would do, and a strict investigation had been made into the jail delivery business, more light would have been thrown upon a very complicated matter.
As it is, we are heartily sorry for Charles H. Payson. Had he pursued an honorable, upright course in his everyday life and conduct while practicing here, he would have won fame, honor, and wealth with scarcely an effort, and might have laughed at any prosecution brought against him. Even in this, his darkest hour, he has many friends who believe him innocent, and who will leave no stone unturned to secure his early release.
It is sad to see a young man, just in the prime of his life, and upon whom nature has lavished her most costly gifts, condemned to a fate which, to a person of spirit, is worse than death. Where he will live on from year to year with all the finer sensibilities and feelings of a man seared and contaminated by constant association with the vilest class of humanity, and to come forth at last with the brand of Cain upon his forehead and the curse of an ex-convict upon his life.
Arkansas City Traveler, May 19, 1880.
The District Court met at Winfield on Monday and Tuesday and adjourned on the latter day. We learn that Allison, of the Telegram, and Millington, of the Courier, were brought before the Court to answer for contempt.
Winfield Courier, May 20, 1880.
THAT CONTEMPT OF COURT.
Judge
Campbell Sits Down on the COURIER.
Last Monday morning we were taken completely by surprise by an attachment issued for us by Judge Campbell for contempt of court.
On examining the complaint, which was written by the judge himself, we found that the contempt consisted in, and was entirely made up of, the following three short articles, which appeared in last week’s COURIER, namely:
“THE PAYSON CASE.
Probably no case was ever tried in this county which has created so much interest as the trial of C. H. Payson, just terminating with the verdict of guilty in the District Court. After the verdict large squads of men were gathered on each corner discussing it with great warmth, and criticising scathingly those who took part in the trial either as witnesses, attorneys, jury, or judge. The majority seemed to sympathize strongly with Payson; eulogized his plea in his own defense as one of the best forensic efforts ever heard; thought that though Payson was probably guilty of something bad, he was not guilty of the offense charged in the indictment and that if he was guilty of another offense, the prosecuting witness was equally guilty of the same offense. They criticize the county attorney for being too zealous in the prosecution, and the judge as acting as prosecuting attorney and ruling out evidence supposed to be favorable to Payson. The minority seemed to be equally sure that Payson was guilty as charged, and had been given a fair trial, that Torrance had done his whole duty and nothing more, that the judge was fair and impartial, and that the jury could not have done otherwise than it did.
This new jury of the whole public will probably never be able to agree.”
“THE COURT AS ATTORNEY.
The boys tell us that in the trial of Payson, when the witness Goodrich was on the stand for cross-examination, Judge Campbell took the witness out of the hands of the attorneys and cross-examined him for an hour in an effort to make him contradict himself.
This reminds us of a case before Judge Davis, of Illinois, in which the attorney for the prosecution demanded that the case proceed to trial at the time set, though the attorney for the defense was absent.
Judge Davis said the case could to trial, but would mention that a similar case happened in La Salle County, and this court looked to the interest of the absent attorney for the defense, and said Judge Davis, ‘You remember that we beat ‘em.’”
“County Attorney Torrance has won additional laurels in his successful conduct of the Payson case. Some are inclined to divide the credit equally between the prosecuting attorney, and the judge, but we assert, and we will stick to it, that Torrance was the main prosecutor.”
The judge considered us guilty of contempt for publishing the above and assessed a fine of $200.
Now anyone who reads the first article above quoted, and was present on the streets last Monday after the verdict was rendered and paying attention to what was going on, knows that the article does not tell the whole truth in regard to the intensity of feeling expressed and numbers of those who sympathized with Payson. It seems to us that any such person can see that we intended to state the facts in a modified way with a view to allay the excitement, instead of attempting to stir it up, as the judge claimed. We did not state our own opinion of the Payson case because we had not attended the trial, and therefore our opinions could not be of value; but we had the idea that Payson had a reasonably fair trial, that the verdict of the jury was just, and that the fact that the judge questioned a witness an hour was not such an offense againt law, the witness, and the prisoner as was claimed by the people. Our local attended the trial, and his views, which he expressed in the local columns, were different from ours. We had a clear right to publish that article, and we maintain that had we told the whole truth concerning what was said and done on the streets that day, whatever the effect of such publication, it would not have been a contempt.
[W.
P. CAMPBELL.]
Winfield Courier, May 27, 1880.
During the late session of the District Court in this county, and at Thursday noon of the second week, the judge adjourned court over until Monday that he might play in a theater at Topeka. Now we give the judge credit for being quite a dramatic artist, and admit that the stage rather than the bench is his forte: but that does not quite compensate a hundred litigants and witnesses for their time, expenses, and costs for another week in which to get a hearing. It is, however, in keeping with the way business was done during the first nine days of the session. In the first week, only a case and a half were tried. The first day there was only a session of one hour. Subsequent days the time spent on the bench was greater, but yet the judge was indolent and sluggish.
Crowds of witnesses and litigants were kept at the county seat day after day on expense, and losing their time waiting for trials which did not place. In the nine and a half days, only five jury trials were reached; all other cases for the jury, and there were many, were either summarily disposed of or continued to next term and jury discharged.
He gave us two days sitting the following week, Monday and Tuesday; but this was taken out of the time he should have been holding court at Wichita. This way of conducting the business of this court is not exceptional, but is about the usual way things have been done here for the last few years.
We believe that a good business judge would have held court at least nine hours every day from the start, would have filled in the time profitably, given all the cases on the docket a fair hearing, and have cleared the docket before that Thursday noon, saving to this county and people thousands of dollars, having plenty of time to play “high spy” at Topeka, and yet have been at Wichita on Monday morning to open court there.
Winfield Courier, June 3, 1880.
Oxford Reflex: Judge Campbell’s District Court has been in session at Winfield during the past two weeks. One Payson was arraigned before the jury under the charge of obtaining property under false pretenses, and the court found him guilty and sentenced him to five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
Allison and Millington, in commenting upon the case, implied that Judge Campbell was over-zealous and took a great deal of the County Attorney’s work upon his own hands. The opinions expressed by the people after the trial were also published and Campbell took it as a little “game” to injure his political standing, and on last Monday morning issued an attachment for contempt of court against Allison of the Telegram, and Millington and Greer of the COURIER. A fine of $200 each was assessed against Allison and Millington, and one dollar against Greer.
[LIST
OF JURORS DRAWN FOR THE AUGUST TERM OF DISTRICT COURT.]
Winfield
Courier, July 29, 1880.
Otter: George Webb.
Otter: George Hosmer.
Richland: J. I. Cottingham.
Cedar: Oliver Sparkman.
Maple: D. V. Killion.
Creswell: T. H. McLaughlin.
Vernon: N. C. Clark.
Sheridan: B. Shriver.
Vernon: J. S. Wooley.
Spring Creek: C. C. Robinson.
Spring Creek: Thomas S. Smith.
Liberty: Isaac Mendenhall.
Arkansas City Traveler, August 18, 1880.
JURORS.
The following comprises the list of jurors drawn for the August term of the district court.
Otter: George Webb.
Otter: George Hosmer.
Richland: J. L. Cottingham.
Cedar: Oliver Sparkman.
Maple: D. V. Killion.
Creswell: T. H. McLaughlin.
Vernon: N. C. Clark.
Sheridan: B. Shriver.
Vernon: J. S. Wooley.
Spring Creek: C. C. Robinson.
Spring Creek: Thomas S. Smith.
Liberty: Isaac Mendenhall.
[DISTRICT
COURT.]
Winfield
Courier, August 19, 1880.
We are authorized by the judge and members of the bar to announce that the District Court will not convene until Wednesday morning, August 25th. Jurors, witnesses, and litigants will please take notice.
Arkansas City Traveler, August 25, 1880.
District court commences today. There are only three cases on the criminal docket, as follows: State versus Frank Wilson, et al., State versus Jerry Pollard et al., and State versus John P. Baden et al.
Winfield
Courier, August 26, 1880.
William Hallock and John P. Hanson, who were arrested here for stealing hides at Wellington, were taken back and bound over in $300 each to answer in the District court.
[COURT
DOCKET: AUGUST TERM, 1880.]
Arkansas City Traveler, Wednesday, September 1, 1880. Front Page.
COURT
DOCKET.
Cowley county District Court calendar, August term, 1880.
CRIMINAL
DOCKET.
FIRST
DAY.
State versus Frank Wilson, et al.
State versus Jerry Pollard, et al.
State versus John P. Baden, et al.
CIVIL
DOCKET.
SECOND DAY.
P. Harkins vs. D. F. Edmons.
C. C. Harris vs. Sanford Day.
Mercy Funk vs. Cynthia Clark et al.
C. C. Harris vs. J. B. Lynn.
W. H. H. Maris vs. T. W. Grant et al.
P. J. Tuttle vs. Lucy Clark et al.
James Kelly vs. Frank Manny.
J. A. Myton vs. S. H. Myton et al.
M. L. Brettun vs. J. P. Bollinger et al.
James Jordan vs. C. S. & F. S. R. R. Co.
J. C. Phillips vs. Phillip Stout et al.
M. E. Bolton vs. Caroline Arnold.
S. D. Pryor and J. D. Pryor vs. Frank Lorry et al.
Consolidated actions.
A. J. Pyburn referred.
Chicago Lumber Co. vs. T. A. Wilkinson et al.
John Lowry vs. C. S. & F. S. Co.
Hackney & McDonald vs. T. E. Reed.
THIRD
DAY.
G. S. Manser vs. E. J. Trible.
B. F. Cox vs. Flora E. Covert et al.
B. B. Vandeventer vs. S. K. & W. R. R Co.
M. L. Read vs. W. S. Page et al.
S. W. Chatterson vs. L. K. Meyers.
J. B. Lynn vs. S. K. & W. R. R. Co.
M. L. Read vs. Francis M. Small et al.
M. L. Read vs. John J. Beene et al.
Curns & Manser vs. Warren Gilleland.
J. W. Lane vs. T. S. Green.
John Stewart vs. B. Corrygan.
Ed Geist vs. B. Corrygan.
John Templeton vs. B. Corrygan.
J. E. Hayner & Co. vs. R. L. Cowles.
W. D. Ragon vs. John Brooks.
Emma J. Keffer vs. Geo Brown et al.
Steven Cavanaugh vs. Chas. Bliss et al.
Appling & Burnett vs. L. J. Webb et al.
FOURTH DAY.
Nancy J. Stansberry vs. G. W. Rogers.
E. G. Cole vs. S. K. & W. R. R. Co.
Mater & Son vs. S. K. & W. R. R. Co.
M. L. Read vs. J. H. Maggard.
Emma Keffer vs. A. T. Shenneman et al.
A. P. Johnson vs. S. K. & W. R. R. Co.
E. Martin & Co. vs. W. M. Boyer et al.
John L. Burkey vs. John Wallace.
J. M. Weeks vs. A. T. & S. F. R. R. Co.
O. F. Weeks vs. A. T. & S. F. R. R. Co.
J. Brooks vs. J. B. Williams et al.
Martin C. Dyer vs. A. R. Wilson.
H. M. Rogers vs. R. C. Story et al.
D. Bell vs. County Commissioners.
E. M. Bird vs. County Commissioners.
J. E. Harman vs. County Commissioners.
C. C. Hollister vs. Co. Commissioners.
Larkin & Young vs. A. T. Spotswood & Co.
FIFTH
DAY.
G. M. Miller & B. F. Cox vs. J. Gleason et al.
R. M. Snyder vs. John Gleason.
Simid Baxton vs. C. A. Baxton.
Eliza Brown vs. E. Brown.
M. L. Smith vs. W. P. Olney et al.
H. F. Bartline vs. Mary C. Caywood et al.
H. S. Ireton vs. C. A. Bliss.
Wm. Case vs. A. Chamberlain.
B. A. Waldron vs. J. H. Clausen et al.
Wm. Aumann vs. Ella Aumann.
D. M. Osborne & Co. vs. Godfred, Mast & Co.
P. W. Crawford vs. Mary M. Crawford.
Harry McNeil vs. A. T. Shenneman.
S. A. Linticum vs. C. H. Linticum.
City of Winfield vs. A. W. Green.
John Moffit vs. J. W. Smiley et al.
Furst & Co. vs. Knisley & Bowles.
Ferdinand Westheimer & Co. vs. Knisley & Bowles.
SIXTH DAY.
S. Westheimer vs. Knisley & Bowles.
Meyers & Meyers vs. Knisley & Bowles.
J. W. Smiley et al vs. Thos. Wright et al.
F. S. Jennings vs. L. C. Wood et al.
Mary Nelson vs. Wm. Andrew et al.
Meyer & Co. vs. Knisley & Bowles.
J. P. Miller vs. J. P. Baden et al.
M. Harkins vs. E. F. Bouton.
M. Harkins vs. J. Devore et al.
W. T. Ekel vs. R. M. Chenault et al.
W. T. Ekel vs. S. M. Baden et al.
Ella Barrett vs. I. H. Barrett.
J. Wilmot vs. Clark & Dysert.
T. J. Shultz vs. Cora Shultz.
H. L. Baker vs. H. Martin.
G. W. Chaplin vs. L. Lippman et al.
Shultz & Hosea vs. Roland & Son.
T. C. Woodruff vs. Jennie Woodruff.
J. W. Pugsley vs. A. T. Shenneman.
T. J. Hall vs. D. S. Sherrard.
[DISTRICT COURT.]
Winfield
Courier, September 2, 1880.
The District Court convened in the courthouse in this city last Wednesday, Judge Campbell on the bench. The weather was hot and the attendance was not large. A large number of cases were continued by consent.
The several late occupants of the jail were arraigned in term and plead guilty, except that Frank Williams plead not guilty of the larceny of Hoenscheidt’s horse and wagon. The case was terminated by a nolle pros, he having plead guilty to charge of assault upon the jailer and attempt to escape, for which crimes he was sentenced to ten years in the penitentiary.
John Gray, for larceny of Hoenscheidt’s horse and wagon, was sentenced to three years imprisonment.
D. B. Waterman, for stealing C. J. Brane’s horse, was sentenced to three years imprisonment.
George Davis, colored, for horse stealing, received a sentence of two years.
George Edwards, colored employee in the Arkansas City Hotel, for carving the cook, sentenced for eighteen months.
Court adjourned to Saturday, Sept. 4th, at 9 o’clock a.m.
Winfield Courier, September 30, 1880.
Last Friday the court granted an appeal on the Fahey saloon cases. They will be tried at the December term of the district court. The saloon was opened Saturday.
[NOTICE:
L. J. WEBB.]
Winfield Courier, September 30, 1880.
All my land office business is in the hands of Gen. A. H. Green, Real Estate Agent, who will attend to it. I shall be at home in time to attend to business in the District Court.
L. J. WEBB.
Arkansas City Traveler, October 13, 1880.
The law requires a notary’s commission to be recorded. Many have failed to comply with this law, and when an affidavit from the clerk of the court is wanted, he can’t certify unless the commission is on record in his office. Send your commissions to E. S. Bedilion, clerk of the district court.
Winfield Courier, October 14, 1880.
Young King, who attempted to rob Father Kelly last week, was bound over to the district court in the sum of $500.
[COMMENTS
ABOUT ALLISON OF WINFIELD.]
Winfield Courier, October 14, 1880.
Allison was once fined one cent in the district court. Four years afterward he was fined two hundred dollars in the same court. If such a creature as Allison has risen from one cent to two hundred in four years, we think there is a chance for us yet, with ninety-nime times the start of him.
[SHERIFF’S
SALE: J. C. McMULLEN VS. SAMUEL L. ENDICOTT.]
Arkansas City Traveler, October 20, 1880.
SHERIFF’S
SALE.
By virtue of an order of sale issued out of the district court of the county of Cowley and State of Kansas, and to me directed and delivered, in an action lately pending in said court wherein J. C. McMullen was plaintiff and Samuel L. Endicott was defendant, I will, on
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, A. D. 1880,
at 2 o’clock p.m. at the south door of the court house in the city of Winfield, in said county, sell at public auction to the highest bidder for cash in hand, all the right, title, and interest of the said defendant, in and to the following described real estate, situate in said county: to wit: The west half (1/2) of the southeast (1/4) of section thirty-five (35), township thirty-four (34), south of range four (4) east, containing eighty (80) acres, in Cowley county, Kansas. Said property was levied upon and will be sold as the property of said defendant without appraisement to satisfy said order of sale. Given under my hand, at the sheriff’s office in the city of Winfield aforesaid, this the 12th day of October, A. D. 1880.
A. T. Shenneman, Sheriff of Cowley County, Kansas.
Arkansas City Traveler, November 17, 1880.
List of jurors drawn to serve for the December term of the district court of Cowley county.
Richard Haworth, Dexter Township.
H. H. Higbee, Sheridan.
M. B. Hennan, Spring Creek.
Ira Patton, Cedar.
J. R. Taylor, Vernon.
Nathan Brooks, Silver Creek.
A. G. Ross, Maple.
Abraham Schurtz, Bolton.
John Moreland, Liberty.
L. Holcomb, Pleasant Valley.
G. S. Cole, Ninnescah.
W. B. Skinner, Bolton.
Winfield
Courier, November 18, 1880.
The District Court, Judge Campbell presiding, sits in Winfield on Monday, December 6th.
[COWLEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT.]
Winfield Courier, November 25, 1880.
Trial docket for December term, commencing on the first Monday (6th day) of December, A. D. 1880:
FIRST DAY, CRIMINAL DOCKET: STATE VERSUS
John P. Baden el al.
Alfred Conway.
Thomas R. Shannon.
James Cunningham.
Theodore Miller.
John Land.
Thomas F. King.
Robert E. Lewis.
Clinton Grimes.
SECOND DAY, CIVIL DOCKET.
Patrick Harkins vs. David F. Edmonds.
C. C. Harris vs. Sanford Day et al.
Mercy M. Funk vs. Cynthia Clark et al.
Christopher C. Harris vs. J. B. Lynn.
W. H. H. Maris vs. T. W. Gant el al.
Pierpont & Tuttle vs. Lucy A. Clarke et al.
Nancy Rogers vs. O. F. Boyle et al.
James Kelly vs. Frank Manny.
J. A. Myton vs. S. E. Myton et al.
James Jordan vs. C. S. & Ft. S. R. R. Co.
M. E. Bolton vs. Caroline Arnold.
S. D. & J. D. Pryor vs. Frank Lowry et al.
Chicago Lumber Co. vs. T. A. Wilkinson et al.
John Lowry vs. C. S. & Ft. S. R. R. Co.
Seymour Tarrant vs. David Hitchcock.
Seymour Tarrant vs. Charles L. Harter et al.
Benjamin F. Cox vs. Flora E. Covert et al.
THIRD DAY, CIVIL DOCKET.
B. B. Vandeventer vs. S. K. & W. R. R. Co.
M. L. Read vs. William S. Page et al.
Sylvester W. Chatterson vs. L. K. Myers, sheriff.
John S. Mann vs. J. D. Burt et al.
John R. Lynn vs. S. K. & W. R. R. Co.
M. L. Read vs. Francis M. Small et al.
M. L. Read vs. John J. Breene et al.
Curns & Manser vs. Warren Gilleland.
J. W. Lane vs. R. S. Green.
John Stuart vs. B. Corrygan.
Edward Geist vs. B. Corrygan.
John Templeton vs. B. Corrygan.
J. E. Hayner & Co. vs. R. L. Cowles.
William D. Ragon vs. John Brooks.
Emma J. Keffer vs. George Brown et al.
Appling & Burnet vs. Leland J. Webb et al.
Nancy J. Stansbury vs. George W. Rogers.
Ed G. Cole vs. S. K. & W. R. R. Co.
FOURTH DAY, CIVIL DOCKET.
Mater & Son vs.l S. K. & W. R. R. Co.
M. L. Read vs. James H. Maggard.
Emma J. Keffer vs. A. T. Shenneman et al.
Albert P. Johnson vs. S. K. & W. R. R. Co.
Edward Martin & Co. vs. W. M. Boyer et al.
John L. Burke vs. John A. Wallace.
Joseph M. Weeks vs. A. T. & S. F. R. R. Co.
Oscar F. Weeks vs. A. T. & S. F. R. R. Co.
John Brooks vs. Jones B. Williams et al.
Martha C. Dyer vs. Andrew R. Wilson.
H. M. Rogers vs. Riley C. Story et al.
Daniel Bell vs. County Commissioners.
J. K. Harmon vs. County Commissioners.
C. C. Hollister vs. County Commissioners.
Larkin & Young vs. Spotswood & Co.
George M. Miller vs. John Gleason et al.
Robert M. Snyder vs. John Gleason et al.
FIFTH DAY, CIVIL DOCKET.
Sarilda Baxton vs. Clayton A. Baxton.
Eliza J. Bowen vs. Elisha Bowen.
Miles L. Smith vs. William P. Olney et al.
H. F. Bartine vs. Mary C. Caywood et al.
William Case vs. Albert Chamberlain.
D. M. Osborn & Co. vs. Godferd ast et al.
Harry McNeil vs. A. T. Shenneman.
John Moffit vws. John W. Smiley et al.
A. Furrst & Co. vs. Knisley & Bowles.
Ferdinand Westheimer & Co. vs. Knisley & Bowles.
Myer & Myer vs. Knisley & Bowles.
John Smiley vs. Thomas Wright et al.
F. S. Jennings vs. Lyman C. Wood et al.
A. Meyer & Co. vs. Knisley & Bowles.
James F. Miller vs. John P. Baden.
Ella M. Barret vs. Isaac H. Barrett.
Jesse Wilmot vs. Clarke & Dysert.
SIXTH DAY, CIVIL DOCKET.
George W. Chaplin vs. Leon Lippman et al.
Truman C. Woodruff vs. Jennie M. Woodruff.
Joseph W. Pagley vs. A. T. Shenneman.
Stephen D. Thomas et al vs. David S. Sherrard.
Parmelia E. Coleman vs. John Coleman.
John A. Hurst vs. Ellen Hurst.
Mary Lawson vs. Peter Lawson.
John F. Johnson vs. Martha Johnson.
Wyland J. Keffer vs. T. C. Norman.
McCord, Nave & Co. vs. A. T. Shenneman.
Susan McGuire vs. James N. McGuire.
Ida W. Patterson vs. A. T. Shenneman.
Lucy Carter vs. Eli Carter.
James Fahey vs. W. M. Boyer, Police Judge.
City of Winfield vs. James Fahey. [2 cases]
City of Winfield vs. Joseph Poor.
Martha Ryan vs. Thomas Ryan.
SEVENTH DAY.
J. C. McMullen vs. William Tousley, et al.
Joseph W. Scores vs. Jacob G. Titus et al.
John W. Dunn vs. William M. Null.
Malin Fowler & Co. vs. Knisley & Bowles.
John Himelspach vs. Knisley & Bowles.
Ida Arnold vs. Elizabeth Dressell et al.
John B. Fleming vs. C. C. Krow.
Winfield Bank vs. F. M. Linscott et al.
Moore Brothers vs. J. H. McBeth.
J. L. Byers vs. W. B. Seward et al.
James Jordan vs. Calvin Coon et al.
S. H. Myton vs. Jacob Troxel et al.
Mary J. Gilky [?] vs. Robert Goodrich.
Emma A. Bullock vs. W. H. H. Bullock.
James Dawson vs. John St. Clair.
J. C. McMullen vs. A. McCarney et al.
M. L. Read vs. H. Tisdale et al.
Basheba Goodell vs. Charles Goodell.
W. H. Fritch vs. T. M. Maddox.
H. E. Andrews Bx vs. James P. Fleek et al.
Dye Brothers & Co. vs. Baird Bros.
Samuel Thompson vs. William Titsworth
Thomas J. Jackson vs. James P. Williams et al.
E. S. BEDILION, Clerk.
[COWLEY
COUNTY DISTRICT COURT.]
Arkansas City Traveler, December 1, 1880.
COWLEY
CO. DISTRICT COURT.
Trial docket for December term, commencing on the first Monday (6th day) of December, A. D., 1880.
FIRST DAY, CRIMINAL DOCKET.
State versus:
John P. Baden et al.
Alfred Conaway.
Thomas R. Shannon.
James Cunningham.
Theodore Miller.
John Land.
Thomas F. Ring.
Robert E. Lewis.
Conton Grimes.
SECOND DAY, CIVIL DOCKET.
Patrick Harkins vs. David F. Edmonds.
C. C. Harris vs. Sanford Day et al.
Mercy M. Funk vs. Cynthia Clark et al.
C. C. Harris vs. J. B. Lynn.
W. H. H. Maris vs. T. W. Gant et al.
Pierpont & Tuttle vs. Lucy Clark et al.
Nancy Rogers vs. O. F. Boyle et al.
James Kelly vs. Frank Manny.
J. A. Myton vs. S. H. Myton et al.
James Jordan vs. C S & Ft S R R Co.
R. B. Waite vs C S & Ft S R R Co.
M. E. Bolton vs. Caroline Arnold.
S D & J D Pryor vs. Frank Lowry et al.
Chicago Lumber Co. vs. T. A. Wilkinson et al.
John Lowry vs. C S & Ft S R R Co.
Seymour Tarrant vs. David Hitchcock.
Seymour Tarrant vs. C. L. Harter et al.
Benjamin F. Cox vs. Flora E. Covert et al.
THIRD DAY.
B. B. Vandeventer vs. S K & W R R Co.
M. L. Read vs. Wm. S. Fage et al.
Sylvester W. Chatterson vs. L. K. Meyers, Sheriff.
J. S. Mann vs. J. D. Burt et al.
J. B. Lynn vs. S K & W R R Co.
M. L. Read vs. Francis Small et al.
M. L. Read vs. J. J. Breene et al.
Curns & Manser vs. Warren Gilleland.
J. W. Lane vs. T. S. Green.
John Stuart vs. B. Corrygan.
Edward Geist vs. B. Corrygan.
John Templeton vs. B. Corrygan.
J. E. Hyner & Co. vs. R. L. Cowles.
Wm. D. Ragon vs. John Brooks.
Emma J. Keffer vs. Geo. Brown et al.
Appling & Burnet vs. L. J. Webb et al.
Nancy Stansbury vs. G. W. Rogers.
E. J. Cole vs. S K & W R R Co.
FOURTH DAY.
Mater & Son vs. S K & W R R Co.
M. L. Read vs. J. H. Maggard.
Emma J. Keffer vs. A. T. Shenneman et al.
A. P. Johnson vs. S K & W R R Co.
Edward Martin & Co. vs. W. M. Boyer et al.
J. L. Burkey vs. John Wallace.
J. M. Weeks vs. A T & S F R R Co.
O. F. Weeks vs. A T & S F R R Co.
John Brooks vs. J. B. Williams et al.
M. C. Dyer vs. A. R. Wilson.
H. M. Rogers vs. R. C. Story et al.
D. Bell vs. County Commissioners.
E. M. Bird vs. County Commissioners.
C. C. Hollister vs. County Commissioners.
Larkin & Young vs. A. T. Spotswood & Co.
G. M. Miller et al vs. J. Gleason et al.
R. M. Snyder vs. J. Gleason et al.
FIFTH DAY.
Sarilda Baxton vs. C. A. Baxton.
Eliza Bowen vs. Elisha Bowen.
M. L. Smith vs. W. P. Olney et al.
H. F. Bartine vs. Mary Caywood et al.
Wm. Case vs. Albert Chamberlain.
Osborn & Co. vs. Godfrey Mast et al.
Harry McNeil vs. A. T. Shenneman.
John Moffit vs. J. W. Smiley et al.
A. Furst & Co. vs. Knisley & Bowles.
Ferdinand Whestheimer & Co. vs. Knisley & Bowles.
Meyer & Meyer vs. Knisley & Bowles.
John Smiley et al vs. Thos Wright et al.
F. S. Sennings vs. L. C. Wood et al.
A. Meyer & Co. vs. Knisley & Bowles.
J. E. Miller vs. J. P. Baden.
Ella M. Barrett vs. I. H. Barrett.
Jessie Willmot vs. Clark & Dysart.
SIXTH DAY.
G. W. Chaplin vs. L. Lippman et al.
T. C. Woodruff vs. Sennie Woodruff.
J. W. Pugsley vs. A. T. Shenneman.
S. D. Thomas et al vs. D. S. Sherrard.
Permelia Coleman vs. John Coleman.
J. A. Hurst vs. Ella Hurst.
Mary Lawson vs. P. Lawson.
J. F. Johnson vs. Martha Johnson.
W. J. Keffer vs. T. C. Norman.
McCord, Nave & Co. vs. A. T. Shenneman.
Susan McGuire vs. J. N. McGuire.
Ida W. Patterson vs. A. T. Shenneman.
Lucy Carter vs. Eli Carter.
Jas. Fahey vs. W. M. Boyer.
City of Winfield vs. Jas. Fahey.
City of Winfield vs. Jas Fahey.
City of Winfield vs. Joseph Poor.
Martha Ryan vs. Thomas Ryan.
SEVENTH DAY.
J. C. McMullen vs. Wm. Tousley et al.
J. W. Stores vs. J. G. Titus et al.
J. W. Dunn vs. W. M. Null.
Malin, Fowler & Co. vs. Knisley & Bowles.
J. Himelspach vs. Knisley & Bowles.
Ida Arnold vs. Elizabeth Dressell et al.
J. B. Fleming vs. C. C. Krow.
Winfield Bank vs. F. M. Lincott et al.
Moore Bros. vs. J. H. Beth.
J. L. Byers vs. W. B. Seward et al.
James Jordan vs. C. Coon et al.
S. H. Myton vs. J. Troxel et al.
Mary Gilky vs. R. Goodrich.
Emma Bullock vs. W. H. Bullock.
James Dawson vs. J. St. Clair.
J. C. McMullen vs. A. McCasney et al.
M. L. Read vs. H. Tisdale et al.
B. Goodell vs. Chas. Goodell.
W. H. Fitch vs. T. M. Maddox.
H. E. Andrews Ex vs. J. R. Fleek et al.
Dye Bros. & Co. vs. Baird Bros.
S. Thompson vs. Wm. Titsworth.
T. J. Jackson vs. J. P. Williams et al.
E. S. BEDILION, Clerk.
Winfield
Courier, December 2, 1880.
The saloon men have resolved to test the prohibition matter and have opened their saloons again. They believe that the courts will hold that they have the right to sell until their licenses expire. They will be prosecuted and the matter will go through the District Court at this term, and a decision will probably be rendered by the Supreme Court by the first of March.
[GRAND JURY.]
Winfield
Courier, December 9, 1880.
On Tuesday a petition was presented to the commissioners asking that they request the Judge of the District Court to call a grand jury. In accordance with the petition the request was made and the judge called the jury to meet immediately. This is the second grand jury ever held in Cowley County, and if we mistake not, there will be a rattling of dry bones when the jury gets down to business.
Arkansas City Traveler, December 22, 1880.
Seven hundred dollars is the amount the county will have to pay in the case of Blackburn versus Conaway, just concluded in the district court by a verdict for the plaintiff. This may safely be charged to the account of King Alcohol, strong drink being the main cause of the affray.
Arkansas City Traveler, December 22, 1880.
Mitchell & Houston made an able and strenuous defense of Conaway in the “assault-with-intent-to-kill” case last week. Mr. Houston is a talented young attorney who will yet make his mark. Courier.
Winfield
Courier, February 10, 1881.
A fact in connection with entering land is not generally known. The arrangement now is that entry can be made at the office of the Clerk of the District Court as well as the Land Office. Any person settling on land can immediately enter the same by appearing before Clerk Bedilion, making affidavit of actual settlement, and paying the requisite entry fee. Many do not understand this and go to Wichita to enter, thus spending unnecessary time and money.
Note
involvement of District Court in Temperance laws...
[TEMPERANCE
BILL.]
Winfield Courier, Thursday, February 24, 1881. Front Page.
PASSED THE HOUSE ON WEDNESDAY AT 3:30 P.M.
AND IS NOW A LAW.
AN ACT To Prohibit the Manufacture and Sale of Intoxicating Liquors, except the Medical, Scientific, and Mechanical Purposes, and to Regulate the Manufacture and Sale Thereof for such Excepted Purposes.
SECTION 1. Any person or persons who shall manufacture, sell, or barter any spirituous, malt, vinous, fermented, or other intoxicating liquors, shall be guilty of misdemeanor, and punished as hereinafter provided: Provided, however, That such liquors may be sold for medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes, as provided in this act.
SECTION 2. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to sell or barter, for medical, scientific, or mechanical purposes, any malt, vinous, spirituous, fermented, or other intoxicating liquors, without first having procured a druggists’ permit therefor from the probate judge of the county wherein such druggist may at the time be doing business; and such probate judge is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to grant a druggists’ permit for the period of one year, to any person of good moral character, who is lawfully and in good faith, engaged in the business of druggist in his county, and who, in his judgment, can be intrusted with the responsibility of selling said liquors for the purposes aforesaid, in the manner hereinafter provided.
In order to obtain a druggists’ permit under this act, the applicant therefor shall present to the probate judge of the county wherein such person is engaged in business, a petition, signed by at least twelve citizens of the township or city wherein such business is located, certifying that the applicant is a person of good moral character, and lawfully engaged in the business of a druggist. He shall also file with such petition a good and sufficient bond to the state of Kansas in the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars, conditioned that such applicant will neither use, sell, barter, nor give away any of the liquors mentioned in section one of this act in violation of any of the provisions of this act; and on such violation, said bond shall thereby become forfeited.
Such bond must be signed by the applicant, and by at least two of the persons signing such petition as sureties, and such sureties must jointly or severally justify in writing, under oath, in the sum of five thousand dollars over and above all their debts, legal exemptions, and liabilities:
Provided, That in cities, towns, and places of less than five thousand population, said bond may be in the sum of one thousand dollars, and the sureties shall justify as provided above in the sum of two thousand dollars. The probate judge shall consider such petition and bond, and if satisfied that the petition is true, and that the bond is sufficient under this act, may in his discretion grant a permit to the applicant to sell intoxicating liquors for medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes only, and thereupon, before delivering said permit, and before it shall be of any validity, the probate judge shall record upon the journal of his court the said permit, together with his order granting the same, and the bond filed therewith and justification thereon, which said permit shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the store where such business is carried on. The probate judge shall receive for said service the sum of five dollars, to be paid by the applicant.
SECTION 3. Any physician who is regularly engaged in the practice of his profession as a business, and who in cases of actual sickness shall deem any of the liquors mentioned in the first section of this act necessary for the health of his patient, may give such patient a written or printed prescription therefor. But no such prescription shall be made or given except in case of actual sickness, and when, in the judgment of such physician, the use of intoxicating liquor is necessary as a remedy. Whenever, in the treatment of a minor, it shall be necessary to use intoxicating liquor as a remedy, the same shall be procured by his parent or guardian, or some other person of full age, to whom such physician may deliver a prescription for that purpose.
Every physician, before making any prescription for intoxicating liquor, shall make and file with the probate judge of the county wherein he may practice his profession, an affidavit before some officer of the county authorized to administer oaths, in substance as follows. [EXAMPLE FOLLOWS OF AN AFFIDAVIT.]
SECTION 4. Any druggist having a permit to sell intoxicating liquors under the provision of this act, may sell for medical purposes only upon the written or printed prescription of a practicing physician, etc. HAD RULES FOR FALSE OATHS, PERJURY, ETC. ALSO MADE IT NECESSARY TO KEEP RECORDS...
The record so kept shall be open to the inspection of the public at all reasonable times during business hours...may sell such liquors in quantities not less than one gallon to any other druggist having a like permit.
SECTION 5. No person shall manufacture or assist in the manufacture of intoxicating liquors in this state except for medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes. FOR THE THREE PURPOSES OUTLINED, ALL SORTS OF STEPS HAD TO BE TAKEN. PROBATE JUDGE IN THE COUNTY: PETITION ASKING FOR A PERMIT AND STATING WHAT KIND OF LIQUOR WOULD BE MANUFACTURED...THEN A BOND OF $10,000 WAS REQUIRED, ETC. VERY DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW ALL OF THE GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED.
SECTION 6. COVERED MANUFACTURERS WHO DID GET PERMISSION TO MANUFACTURE LIQUORS...AGAIN MAKING IT VERY DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW ALL THE GUIDELINES, PROCEDURES, BONDS, ETC.
SECTION 7. Any person, without taking out and having a permit to sell intoxicating liquors as provided in this act, who shall directly or indirectly sell or barter any spiritous, malt, vinous, fermented, or other intoxicating liquor, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than thirty days nor more than ninety days; and for a second offense shall be fined in any sum not less than two hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than sixty days nor more than six months. And for a third, and very subsequent offense, shall be fined in a sum not less than five hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than three months nor more than one year, or shall suffer both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.
SECTION 8. Any person, without taking out and having a permit to manufacture intoxicating liquors, as provided in this act, who shall manufacture, or aid, assist, or abet in the manufacture of any of the liquors mentioned in section one of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall suffer the same punishment as provided in the last preceding section of this act for unlawfully selling such liquors.
SECTION 9. Every person having a permit to sell intoxicating liquors, or to manufacture and sell intoxicating liquors under the provisions of this act, who shall sell or barter such liquor in any other manner or for any other purpose than in this act, provided, or who shall violate any of the provisions of this act, shall, upon conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be fined in any sum not less than one hundred dollars nor more than three hundred dollars for the first offense, or be imprisoned in the county jail not less than thirty days nor more than ninety days, and in addition thereto shall forfeit his permit to sell under this act; for a second offense he shall be fined n a sum not less than three hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, or shall be imprisoned in the county jail not less than thirty days nor more than ninety days, and forfeit his permit, and for a period of five years his right to obtain a permit to sell intoxicating liquors under this act; and for a third and every subsequent offense he shall be fined in a sum not less than five hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, or shall be imprisoned in the county jail not less than three months nor more than one year, and shall forfeit his permit and his right forever to obtain a permit to sell intoxicating liquors in this state under the provisions of this act. In all cases where forfeitures are provided in this act, the court, in rendering judgment in the action, shall declare such forfeiture in fixing the punishment.
SECTION 10. All liquors mentioned in section one of this act, and all other liquors or mixtures thereof, by whatever name called, that will produce intoxication, shall be considered and hold to be intoxicating liquors within the meaning of this act.
SECTION 11. A permit to sell intoxicating liquor under this act shall continue in force for one year from the date thereof, unless sooner forfeited under the provisions of this act; and a permit to manufacture and sell intoxicating liquor under this act shall continue in force for a period of five years from the date thereof, unless sooner forfeited under the provisions of this act: Provided, That the probate judge may require a renewal of the bond of said manufacturer at the end of any year by giving thirty days’ notice to the principal in such bond, requiring him to renew such bond, and in default of his giving a new bond with sureties, to the satisfaction of such probate judge, after having been so notified, he shall forfeit his permit to manufacturer and sell intoxicating liquor under this act; such forfeit shall be delcared by such probate judge, and entered of record in said probate court.
SECTION 12. It shall be the duty of all sheriffs, under-sheriffs, constables, marshall, and police officers of cities or towns, having any notice or knowledge of any violation of the provisions of this act to notify the county attorney of the county of such violation, with the name of any witness within his knowledge by whom such violation can be proven. If any such officer shall fail in any case to comply with the provisions of this section, he shall on conviction thereof be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and fined in any sum not exceeding one hundred dollars, and such conviction shall be deemed a removal of such officer from office. If the county attorney of any county shall be notified by an officer or other person of any violation of any of the provisions of this act, it shall be his duty forthwith to diligently inquire into the facts of such violation, and if there is reasonable ground for instituting a prosecution, it shall be the duty of such county attorney to file a complaint in writing before some court of competent jurisdiction, charging the suspected person of such offense, and shall verify such complaint by affidavit, but it shall be sufficient to state in such affidavit that he believes the facts stated in such complaint to be true. If any county attorney shall fail or refuse to faithfully perform any duty imposed upon him by this act, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof in the district court shall be fined in any sum not exceeding five hundred dollars, and on such conviction shall be deemed to be removed from office. . . .
[There were 24 sections. Act took effect May 1, 1881.]
[NOTICE:
APPLICATION FOR PARDON OF ALFRED CONWAY.]
Arkansas City Traveler, April 20, 1881.
NOTICE.
Notice is hereby given that on the 3rd day of May at 11 o’clock a.m., 1881, an application will be made to his excellency, Gov. John P. St. John, at Topeka, Kansas, for the pardon of Alfred Conway, convicted at the December term (A. D. 1880) of the Cowley County District Court, of an assault and wounding, under such circumstances, that, it would have been manslaughter if death had ensued. See sec. 42 chap. 31 “of crimes and punishments” act., and sentenced to six months, confinement in the Cowley County jail. Said sentence expires June 16th, 1881. MITCHELL & HOUSTON.
[TRIAL
DOCKET DISTRICT COURT MAY TERM, 1881.]
Winfield
Courier, April 28, 1881.
CRIMINAL DOCKET: STATE OF KANSAS VERSUS 59 CASES...
Theo Miller, R. Ehret, Jos. Whiteman, Frank Manny, John Himelspach, James Fahey, Frank Merrill, Stephen O’Lane, Theo R. Timme, Thos. H. Benning, E. A. Henthorn, Geo. Miller, B. M. Terrill, Joe R. Smith, A. W. Patterson, Harry Bahntge, David Harter, A. H. Green, Barney Shrivers, Thos. Wright, Sid S. Major, W. A. Gibbs, S. S. Moore, Geo. Corwin, Ed G. Cole, A. Hatfield, ____ Squires, John Custer, Wayne Bitting, Ed Appling, Ed Howell, S. R. Walcott, W. L. Mullen, H. Jochems, James Allen, L. J. Webb, Ed Collins, Sol Frazier, R. Ehret, Major F. Moss, Geo. Haywood, E. B. Weitzel, Allison Toops, Willie Fogg, Alex May.
CIVIL DOCKET: 120 CASES.
Patrick Harkins vs. David F. Edmons; C. C. Harris vs. Sanford Day; Mercy M. Funk vs. Cinthia Clark et al; W. W. H. Maris vs. T. W. Gant et al; James Kelly vs. Frank Manny; J. A. Myton vs. S. H. Myton et al; M. E. Bolton vs. Caroline Arnold; S. D. Pryor et al vs. M. L. Read et al; John Lowry vs. C S & Ft S R R Co; Seymour Tyrant vs. David Hitchcock; Same vs. C. L. Harter et al; John Pittinger vs. Samuel B. Atkinson et al; B. B. Vandeventer vs. S K & W R R Co.; John S. Mann vs. J. D. Burt et al; John B. Lynn vs. S K & W R R Co.; M. L. Read vs. Francis M. Small et al; M. L. Read vs. John J. Breene et al; Curns & Manser vs. Warren Gillelen; J. W. Lane vs. T. S. Green; John Stuart vs. B. Corrygan; Edward Geist vs. same; John Templeton vs. same; J. E. Hayner & Co. vs. H. L. Cowles; Wm. D. Rason vs. John Brooks; Emma J. Keffer vs. George Brown et al; Albert P. Johnson vs S K & W R R Co.; Oscar F. Weeks vs. same; Martha C. Dyer vs. Andrew R. Wilson; Daniel Bell vs. County Commissioners; E. M. Bird vs. same; J. R. Harmon vs. same; C. C. Hollister vs. same; Sarilda Paxton vs. Clayton A. Paxton; Miles L. Smith vs. W. P. Olney et al; Henry S. Ireton vs. Charles A. Bliss; D. M. Osburn vs. Godfrey Mast et al; Harry McNeil vs. A. T. Shenneman; John Moffit vs. John Smiley et al; Same vs. Thomas Wright et al; Joseph W. Pugsley vs A. T. Shenneman; Mary Lawson vs. Peter Lawson; Wyland J. Keffer vs. T. B. Norman; McCord, Nave & Co. vs. A. T. Shenneman; City of Winfield vs. Joseph Poor; Malin Fowler & Co. vs. Knisley & Bowles; John Himelspach vs. same; Ida Arnold vs. Elizabeth Dressel et al; John B. Fleming vs. C. C. Krow; Winfield Bank vs. T. M. Linscott; Moore Brothers vs. J. H. McBerth [? McBeth would seem more like it ?]; J. L. Byers vs.
W. B. Seward et al; M. L. Read vs. H. Tisdale et al; Basheba Goodell vs. Charles Goodell; W. H. Fritch vs. T. M. Maddox; Robert Allison vs. James Finch; Frank C. Wood vs. Geo. H. McIntire; Hackney & McDonald vs. Bolton and Creswell townships; Thomas J. Jackson vs. James P. Williams et al; James P. Walch vs. Knisley & Bowles; S. L. Brettun vs. Jacob G. Titus et al; Field, Leiter & Co. vs. A. T. Shenneman; M. L. Read vs. John L. Rusbridge; Brotherton and Silver vs. Elmer V. Stevens; H. P. Farrar vs. E. R. C. Gray; John B. Tallman vs. John H. Willis et al; James L. Huey vs. Agnes Wilson; George B. Green vs. James Harden; Libby & Moody vs. James Harden; Almost Wiley vs. James Harden; R. L. McDonald & Co. vs. Agnes Wilson; Tennent Walker and Company vs. Agnes Wilson; Evan Richards et al vs. S. B. Littell; Aultman & Taylor Co. vs. George Hafer; Winfield Bank vs. H. F. Burnett; Rosanna E. Sydall vs. James H. Finch; W. M. Wyeth & Co. vs. P. J. Sydall; S. P. Kinsley vs. A. T. Shenneman; Frank S. Sydall vs. James H. Finch; T. E. Lewis vs. E. A. Wilson; In the matter of W. M. Null for mill dam; Adolphus H. Green vs. E. F. Widner et al; Daniel Sheels vs. G. E. Bradt et al; M. Brettun vs. Alvin E. McDeed; Rufus B. Wait vs. E. E. Lewis; M. L. Read vs. Samuel C. Fitzgerald; F. E. Lewis vs. Charles Jones; S. B. Tucker vs. O. F. Boyle et al; Nancy A. Snodgrass vs. John Snodgrass; Jennie P. Coleman vs. Geo. W. Coleman; L. Lowenstein vs. B. Saddler; Mary Lewes vs. Lewis Sherbino; J. E. Hoyt vs. A. T. Shenneman; Comstock, Castle & Co. vs. E. S. Rose; Elijah Wells vs. Nancy J. Wells; Rilda P. Hughes vs. Charles Marshall; Robert E. Wallace vs. Martin West; March C. Anderson vs. Wm. D. Anderson; Margaret J. Manning vs. Edwin C. Manning; Almira I. Clay vs. Wm. Clay; Hattie B. Fuller vs. J. S. Chick; Jostin [?] Hollister vs. John L. Morton et al; John W. Sargeant vs. Susan Sargeant; John Lowry vs. F. A. Osborn; Aultman Taylor & Co. vs. Reuben Corman et al; Wm. C. Hatchings vs. Thomas Copeland; Mason & Tulle vs. Malinda Clay et al; Frank J. Sydall vs. James H. Finch; N. C. Myers vs. Elijah Murphey et al; Quincy A. Glass vs. School District 123; John Rhodes vs. John T. Quarrels; James E. Searl vs. Overa Y. Searl; Simmons and Ott vs. J. B. Williams et al; Thos. James vs. James Boyd.
[TRIAL
DOCKET, DISTRICT COURT - MAY TERM, 1881.]
Arkansas City Traveler, May 4, 1881. Front Page.
TRIAL DOCKET DISTRICT
COURT, MAY TERM, 1881.
CRIMINAL
DOCKET.
STATE OF KANSAS VERSUS—
Theo Miller. R. Ehret. Jos. Whiteman. Frank Manny. John Himselspach. James Fahey. Frank Merrill. Stephen O’Lane. Theo R. Timme. Thos. H. Benning. E. H. Henthorn. Geo. Miller. B. M. Terrill. Jno. R. Smith. A. W. Patterson. Harry Bahntge. David Harter. A. H. Green. Barney Shrivers. Thos. Wright. Sid S. Major. W. A. Gibbs. S. S. Moore. Geo. Corwin. Ed H. Cole. A. Hatfield. Squires. John Custer. Wayne Bitting. Ed Appling. Ed Rowell. S. R. Walcott. W. L. Mullin. H. Jochems. James Allen. L. J. Webb. Ed Collins. Sol. Frazier. R. Ehret. Major F. Moss. Geo. Haywood. E. B. Weitzel. Allison Toops. Willie Fogg. Alex May.
CIVIL DOCKET.
Patrick Harkins vs. David F. Edmonds.
C. C. Harris vs. Sanford Day.
Mercy M. Funk vs. Cynthia Clark, et al.
W. H. H. Marris vs. T. W. Gant, et al.
James Kelly vs. Frank Manny.
J. A. Myton vs. S. H. Myton, et al.
M. E. Bolton vs. Caroline Arnold.
S. D. Pryor et al vs. M. L. Read et al.
John Lowry vs C S & F S R R Co.
Seymour Tarrant vs. David Hitchcock.
Same vs. C. L. Harter et al.
John Pittinger vs. Samuel B. Atkinson et al.
B. B. Vandeventer vs. S K & W R R Co.
John S. Mann vs. J. D. Burt et al.
John B. Lynn vs. S K & W R R Co.
M. L. Read vs. Francis M. Small et al.
M. L. Read vs. John J. Breene et al.
Curns & Manser vs. Warren Gilleland.
J. W. Lane vs. T. S. Green.
John Stuart vs. B. Corrygan.
Edward Geist vs. same.
John Templeton vs. same.
J. E. Haynes & Co. vs. R. L. Cowles.
Wm. D. Ragon vs. John Brooks.
Emma J. Keffer vs. George Brown et al.
Appling & Burnett vs. L. J. Webb et al.
Nancy J. Stansberry vs. Geo. W. Rodgers.
Ed G. Cole vs. S K & W R R Co.
Mater & Son vs. same.
Emma J. Keffer vs. A. T. Shenneman et al.
Albert P. Johnson vs. S K & W R R Co.
John L. Burkey vs. John A. Wallace.
Joseph M. Weeks vs. A T & S F R R Co.
Oscar F. Weeks vs. same.
Martha C. Dyer vs. Andrew R. Wilson.
Daniel Bell vs. County Commissioners.
E. M. Bird vs. same.
J. R. Harmon vs. same.
C. C. Hollister vs. same.
Sarilda Paxton vs. Clayton A. Paxton.
Miles L. Smith vs. W. P. Olney et al.
Henry S. Ireton vs. Charles A. Bliss.
D. M. Osbourn vs. Godfred Mast et al.
Harry McNeil vs. A. T. Shenneman.
John Moffitt vs. John W. Smiley et al.
Same vs. Thomas Wright et al.
Joseph W. Pugsly vs. A. T. Shenneman.
Mary Lawson vs. Peter Lawson.
Wyland J. Keffer vs. T. H. Norman.
McCord, Nave & Co. vs. A. T. Shenneman.
City of Winfield vs. Joseph Poor.
Malin, Fowler & Co. vs. Knisley & Bowles.
John Himelspach vs. same.
Ida Arnold vs. Elizabeth Dressel et al.
John B. Fleming vs. C. C. Krow.
Winfield Bank vs. T. M. Linscott.
Moore Brothers vs. J. H. McBeth.
J. L. Byers vs. W. B. Seward et al.
M. L. Read vs. H. Tisdale et al.
Basheba Goodell vs. Charles Goodell.
W. H. Fritch vs. T. M. Maddox.
Robert Allison vs. James H. Finch.
Frank C. Wood vs. George H. McIntire.
Hackney & McDonald vs. Bolton and Cresswell townships.
Thomas J. Jackson vs. James P. Williams et al.
James P. Walch vs. Knisley & Bowles.
S. L. Brettun vs. Jacob G. Titus et al.
Field, Leiter & Co. vs. A. T. Shenneman.
M. L. Read vs. John I. Rusbridge.
Brotherton & Silver, vs. Elmer V. Stevens.
H. P. Farrar vs. E. R. C. Gray.
John B. Tallman vs. John H. Willis et al.
James L. Huey vs. Agnes Wilson.
George B. Green vs. James Harden.
Libby & Moody vs. James Harden.
Amos Wiley vs. James Harden.
R. L. McDonald & Co. vs. Agnes Wilson.
Tennent, Walker & Co. vs. Agnes Wilson.
Evan Richards et al vs. S. B. Littell.
Aultman & Taylor Co. vs. George Hafer.
Winfield Bank vs. H. F. Burnett.
Rosanna E. Sydall vs. James H. Finchy.
W. M. Wyeth & Co. vs. F. Sydall.
S. P. Knisely vs. A. T. Shenneman.
Frank J. Sydall vs. James H. Finch.
T. E. Lewis vs. E. A. Wilson.
In the matter of W. M. Null, for mill dam.
Adolphus H. Green vs. E. F. Widner et al.
Daniel Sheel vs. G. E. Bradt et al.
M. Brettun vs. Alvin F. McDeed.
Rufus B. Waite vs. F. E. Lewis.
M. L. Read vs. Samuel C. Fitzgerald.
F. E. Lewis vs. Charles Jones.
S. B. Tucker vs. O. F. Boyle et al.
Nancy A. Snodgrass vs. John Snodgrass.
Jennie P. Coleman vs. George W. Coleman.
L. Lowenstein vs. B. Saddler.
Mary Lowes vs. Lewis Sherbine.
J. E. Hoyt vs. A. T. Shenneman.
Comstock, Castle & Co. vs. D. S. Rose.
Elijah Wells vs. Nancy J. Wells.
Rilda P. Hughs vs. Charles Marshal.
Robert E. Wallace vs. Martin West et al.
Mary C. Anderson vs. Wm. D. Anderson.
Margaret J. Manning vs. Edwin C. Manning.
Almira L. Clay vs. Wm. H. Clay.
Hattie B. Fuller vs. J. S. Chick.
Justin Hollister vs. John L. Morton et al.
John W. Sargeant vs. Susan Sargeant.
John Lowry vs. F. A. Osborn.
Aultman & Taylor Co. vs. Reuben Corman et al.
Wm. C. Hastings vs. Thomas Copeland.
Mason & Tully vs. Malinda Clay et al.
Frank J. Sydal vs. Janice H. Finch.
N. C. Myers vs. Elijah Murphey et al.
Quincy A. Glass vs. School District 125.
John Rhodes vs. John T. Quarles.
James E. Searl vs. Overa V. Searl.
Simmons & Ott vs. J. B. Williams et al.
Thos. Jones vs. James Boyd.
Arkansas City Traveler, May 4, 1881.
The Trial Docket for the present term of the District Court will be found on the outside of this issue. There are 45 criminal cases and 120 civil cases.
Winfield Courier, May 5, 1881.
The case of Buckman and Jordan against Lena McNeil, involving Buckman’s title to the McNeil property, which he purchased of Chas. Payson, was decided in Buckman’s favor by the Supreme Court, reversing the decision of the district court.
[DISTRICT
COURT.]
Winfield Courier, May 5, 1881.
Court met promptly Monday morning. The first cases taken up were the indictments made by the grand jury at the last term. A plea of guilty was entered by all of the parties present, and a uniform fine of $10 and costs assessed against those indicted for gambling, and $25 each for three cases of selling liquor on Sunday. Civil cases were then taken up, and the following ones disposed of.
Vandeventer vs. S. K. & W. R. R., dismissed.
Stansberry vs. Rogers, change of venue to Montgomery County district court.
Smith vs. Onley, change of venue to Montgomery County district court.
Osborn & Co. vs. Mast et al, change of venue to Montgomery County district court.
McNeil vs. Shenneman, dismissed.
Fowler & Co. vs. Kinsley & Bowles, dismissed.
Himelspach vs. Kinsley & Bowles, dismissed.
Read vs. Tisdale, change of venue to Montgomery County court.
Godell vs. Godell, dismissed.
Fritch vs. Maddux, change of venue to Montgomery County court.
Allison vs. Finch, dismissed.
Wood vs. McIntire, continued.
Hackney & McDonald vs. Creswell and Bolton townships, judgment for plaintiffs, new trial granted and continued.
Walsh vs. Kinsley & Bowles, dismissed.
Brotherton & Silver vs. Stevens, dismissed.
Farrar vs. Gay, dismissed.
McDonald & Co. vs. Wilson, dismissed.
Kinsley vs. Shenneman, dismissed.
Sheel vs. Bradt, continued.
Brettun vs. McDeed, dismissed.
Waite vs. Lewis, dismissed.
Lowenstein vs. Sadler, dismissed.
Hughs vs. Marshall, dismissed.
Wallis vs. West, dismissed.
Rhodes vs. Quarrels, dismissed.
In the matter of the proceedings of Lewis Brown, order granted.
Arkansas City Traveler, May 11, 1881.
Among the cases disposed of, in the District court, last Friday, we noticed the following:
Daniel Bell vs. County Commissioners of Cowley County, judgment by consent for the amount found by the arbitrators, $150.00 and costs against the defendants.
E. M. Bird vs. County Commissioners, judgment by consent, $175.00, costs against defendant.
J. R. Harmon vs. County Commissioners, judgment by consent. $250.00 costs against defendant.
C. C. Hollister vs. County Commissioners, judgment by consent, $175.00 costs against defendant.
W. J. Keffer vs. T. B. Norman, appeal dismissed.
Winfield Courier, May 12, 1881.
We think the great cost to the county in the matter of awards to individuals by the courts for damages to farms from laying out roads, needs ventilation. The expense to the county is getting to be enormous. As a case in point, a year or two ago a petition for a new road two miles long in the south part of the county was presented to the commissioners and viewers appointed. Four men claimed damages and the viewers appraised the damages of Bell $15, Bird $10, Harmon $40, and Hollister $20, Total $85. The commissioners approved the report of the viewers and granted the road. The four claimants appealed on the matter of their damages, allowed by the commissioners, to the district court. The cases were submitted to arbitration, the county naming one referee, the claimants the second, and the two thus named
choosing the third. The referee named by the claimants was a father-in-law to one of them, we believe, and insisted that each claimant should be awarded $400 damages. The board of referees, finally, some time last December, we think, awarded to Bell $150, to Bird $175, to Harmon $250, and to Hollister $175, Total $750 and costs, which will amount to probably $150 in addition. The district court at the present term rendered judgment according to the award and we now suppose there is no way left for it but the payment of these judgments by the county. This is not a solitary case. One is reported from the north part of the county in which one of the commissioners was well acquainted with the claimant and his grounds of damages and was satisfied that the claimant was benefitted rather than damaged by the opening of the road, yet, on appeal Judge Campbell’s court awarded him some $700 damages against the county. Now we venture to assert that there is no two miles of road in the county which should ever have cost over $200 and all such allowances as those named are extortions on the county.
The commissioners will be compelled to adopt new tactics to protect the county from frauds and extortions in the matter of road damages. Though it will be a great inconvenience and even damage in many cases, yet they must adopt the rule, never to grant a road until all questions of damages are settled beyond appeal, and then with a full knowledge of the exact liabilities of the county in the matter, they may determine whether the road is worth to the county what it will cost, and refuse to grant the road if in their judgement it is not.
We presume that the viewers may frequently, under the impression that they are to work for the county, assess damages too low, and that referees and jurors are apt to feel that they are on the other side and at work for the interests of their craft. This may account for the wide discrepancies between the awards of the one and those of the other. If all viewers, referees, and jurors had a just conception of their duties and responsibilities, these discrepancies would almost wholly disappear and few cases of appeal would occur. When they did, the appellants would pretty regularly have the costs to pay, because of not getting more damages than was allowed by the commissioners.
Winfield Courier, May 12, 1881.
The District Court has been grinding out matters quite rapidly during the past week. Judge Torrance hopes to clear the docket this term, but we do not think he can accomplish it.
[DISTRICT
COURT.]
Winfield Courier, May 12, 1881.
The following cases have been disposed of by the court up to date.
Pat Harkins vs. D. F. Edmunds, judgment for plaintiff.
Harris vs. Day, continued.
Harris vs. Day, continued.
Mars vs. Gant, judgment for defendant.
Kelly vs. Manny, change of venue.
Bolton vs. Arnold, continued.
Pryor & Pryor vs. Read—A. L. Redden, judge pro tem—report of referee set aside.
Tarrant vs. Hitchcock, change of venue.
Tarrant vs. Harter et al, change of venue.
Pittinger vs. Atkinson, judgment for plaintiff.
Vandeventer vs. S. K. & W. R. R., dismissed.
Haynes & Co. vs. Cowles, improperly on the docket.
Read vs. Breene et al, judgment for defendants.
Curns & Manser vs. Gilleland, judgment for plaintiffs for $50 and costs.
Stuart vs. Corrygan, judgment for defendant.
Geist vs. Corrygan, judgment for defendant.
Templeton vs. Corrygan, judgment for defendant.
Reagin vs. Brooks, change of venue.
Keffer vs. Brown, judgment for defendant.
Berkey vs. Wallis, case dismissed at cost of plaintiff.
Dyer vs. Wilson, case dismissed for want of prosecution.
Smith vs. Onley, change of venue.
Appling & Burnett vs. Webb, judgment for defendant.
Stansberry vs. Rogers, change of venue.
Keffer vs. Shenneman, case dismissed at cost of plaintiff.
Osborn vs. West, change of venue.
Moffitt vs. Smiley, judgment for plaintiff.
Smiley vs. Wright, referred to M. G. Troup.
Pugsley vs. Shenneman, judgment for plaintiff.
McCord, Nave & Co. vs. Shenneman, motion overruled.
City of Winfield vs. Poor, not guilty.
Fleming vs. Krow, judgment for plaintiff; new trial granted, and appeal dismissed.
Moore vs. McBeth, verdict for plaintiff.
Byers vs. Seward, judgment for plaintiff.
Read vs. Rusbridge, judgment for plaintiff.
Tellman vs. Willis, judgment for plaintiff.
Richards and Miller vs. Littell, judgment for defendant.
Aultman & Taylor Co. vs. Hofer, judgment for defendant.
Winfield Bank vs. Burnett, judgment for plaintiff.
Coleman vs. Coleman, decree of divorce granted.
Fuller vs. Chick, judgment for plaintiff.
Aultman & Taylor Co., vs. Corman, judgment for plaintiff.
Mason & Tully vs. Clay, et al, judgment by default; execution to issue in 10 days.
Arkansas City Traveler, May 25, 1881.
FROM
THE MONITOR.
A number of young men with fair incomes could get situations in this city as sons-in-law.
Mr. Hackney and family expect to leave for Colorado this next week. Mr. Hackney will return at once, but the balance of the folks will spend the summer in the mountains.
In the trial of Richardson, last Monday, the failure to bind the accused over to the district court was caused by the mismanagement of the case by the prosecuting attorney, of which Mr. Hackney promptly availed himself. When Richardson was released, the crowd was jubilant. We should judge that the morals of Oxford are at a low ebb, and we are not surprised that they starve out any paper that tries to enlighten them.
On last Monday the county attorney had his first prosecution under the new temperance law. Complaint was made to him of drunkenness on the part of one of our citizens; he saw the accused and informed him there was no “local option” in the case, and he was obliged to prosecute or be himself prosecuted. The party plead guilty, and his spree cost him the neat little sum of upwards of $23 dollars, $15 of which goes to the county attorney. A few such cases will help out Frank’s income amazingly.
Winfield Courier, May 26, 1881.
OBSERVATION! I BELIEVE THAT THE COURIER FAILED TO COVER THE LAST PART OF DISTRICT COURT HELD BY TORRANCE!
AS A RESULT, MANNING DIVORCE TRIAL WAS NOT COVERED!
Winfield Courier, August 4, 1881.
The corn doctor came to grief last week. He was arrested Friday on a charge of stealing money from Mr. Al. Hughes. The circumstances were about as follows: Hughes had gone into the closet in the rear of the Commercial House, and while there, dropped his pocket book. Soon after he missed it and on searching found it in the vault. He went for it with a hay fork, but after fishing it out, found that the money which it contained, about fifty dollars, was gone. He then learned that the “corn doctor” had been the only man in the closet since he left it, and had him arrested for taking the money. The “Doctor” was searched and the officers were astonished to find not only fifty dollars, but near five hundred dollars on his person. He had rolls of bills in every pocket and was almost made of money. A preliminary hearing was had before Justice Tansey and he was bound over for his appearance at the district court in the sum of $100. He promptly put up the money and went on his way rejoicing.
Arkansas City Traveler, August 17, 1881.
U. S. COMMISSIONER. It is with pleasure we note that at a term of the circuit court of the U. S. of America, for the district of Kansas, held at Leavenworth, June 16th, 1881, our townsman, I. H. Bonsall, was duly appointed commissioner of the U. S. District Court. This, with the other business incumbent upon Mr. Bonsall as a J. P., will give him his hands full of legal matters.
Arkansas City Traveler, September 14, 1881.
Mr. Luscious Knight, District court stenographer, while on his way from Chicago to Winfield, was so unfortunate as to take the train which was stopped by the train robbers in Missouri. They compelled him to disgorge his wealth, consisting of 50 cents in cash and a small gold ring given him by his best girl, which he was compelled to throw into the sack despite his tears and protestation. He saved a roll of bills by thrusting it down his trousers. Telegram.
NOTE: ARTICLE SHOWS “LUSCIOUS” KNIGHT.
[EDITORIAL
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE ANOTHER GRAND JURY.]
Winfield Courier, October 13, 1881.
At the late meeting of the county commissioners a legal and sufficient petition was presented asking for a grand jury to attend the approaching session of the district court. A remonstrance on the ground of the enormous expense to the county, of grand juries, was also presented. Commissioners laid the matter over and adjourned to the Friday after election, asking for more information of the wishes of the people, etc.
Breakdown was given on grand jury of a year ago.
Amount of jurors fees: $307.80
Amount of Witness fees: 92.90
Amount of Clerk’s fees: 9.40
Amount of Sheriff’s fees: 21.85
Total: $431.95
SKIPPED THE REST!
[BAR
DOCKET DISTRICT COURT - COWLEY COUNTY.]
Winfield Courier, November 3, 1881.
Cowley County,
Kansas, November A. D. 1881 Term.
Judge:
Hon. E. S. Torrance.
County
Attorney: F. S. Jennings.
Sheriff:
A. T. Shenneman.
Clerk:
E. S. Bedilion.
FIRST
DAY - CRIMINAL DOCKET.
STATE
VERSUS
George Heywood.
J. McDade.
Quincy A. Glass.
James Jackson.
Robert E. Hicks.
Ewell Harmon.
Jacob W. Weakley.
Christian Geis.
Adolphus H. Green.
W. C. Baird.
Thomas J. Armstrong.
Lewis Albright.
Joseph Best.
SECOND DAY - CIVIL DOCKET.
C. C. Harris vs. Sanford Day, et al.
Mercy M. Funk vs. Cynthia Clark et al.
M. E. Bolton vs. Caroline Arnold.
M. L. Read vs. Francis Small, et als.
Lena McNeil vs. Charles H. Payson, et als.
Joseph M. Weeks vs. A T & S F R R Co.
Oscar F. Weeks vs. A T & S F R R Co.
Sarilda Paxton vs. Clayton A. Paxton.
M. D. Osborn & Co. vs. Godfred Mast et al.
John Smalley vs. Thomas Wright et al.
Frank C. Wood vs. George H. McIntire.
Hackney & McDonald vs. Bolton and Creswell townships.
S. L. Brettun vs. Jacob G. Titus.
Frank J. Sydall vs. James H. Finch.
Matter of William M. Null to erect a mill dam across Walnut River.
Adolphus H. Green vs. E. F. Widner et al.
Daniel Sheel vs. G. E. Bradt et al.
Samantha B. Thomas vs. O. F. Boyle et al.
THIRD
DAY.
Justin Hollister vs. John L. Morton et als.
William C. Hastings vs. Thomas Copeland et al.
Frank J. Sydall vs. James H. Finch.
Quincy A. Glass vs. Lucian F. McMasters et al.
Merih C. Headrick, administrator, vs. John Service.
M. L. Read vs. Thomas J. Lindley.
W. C. Robinson vs. John Byard et al.
G. D. Harrington vs. Abraham Clark et al.
Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co. vs. Peter Thompson et al.
Louis Tournier vs. Charles Hawkins & Bro.
Charles C. Stevens vs. The City of Winfield.
F. E. Lewis vs. D. W. Pierce, administrator, et al.
Harrison Harrod vs. Benjamin Harrod et al.
Chicago Lumber Co. vs. Bolton and Cresswell townships.
Mary K. Hoyt vs. Charles G. Hoyt et al.
C. M. Robinson vs. Jacob M. Folks et al.
William O. Whiting vs. L. C. Woodruff.
CIVIL DOCKET.
FOURTH
DAY.
Austin Hester vs. Jacob Powell.
N. S. Burnham vs. Minerva O. Burnham.
M. L. Read vs. Emma B. Fitzgerald et al.
John J. Clark vs. S. J. Rice et al..
John J. Clark vs. D. M. Purdy et al.
S. E. Yoeman vs. C. Coleman.
E. S. Bedilion vs. County Commissioners.
W. S. Houston vs. Arkansas City Canal Co.
Sarah E. Parker vs. James Parker.
Elija Reihl vs. Joseph Likowski.
William O. Whiting vs. L. C. Woodruff.
David Wilson vs. Jacob G. Titus et al.
Eliza Wells vs. Nancy J. Wells.
Eliza J. Godfrey vs. Erastus J. Godfrey et al..
Melissa J. Kerby vs. Richard Kerby.
Henry Hahn vs. William Pennington.
Josie James vs. George R. James.
Thomas B. Hughes vs. George W. Divelbliss.
FIFTH
DAY.
Emma L. Mendenhall vs. Pinkney A. Mendenhall.
Joseph W. Storrs vs. D. C. Strawbridge.
W. C. Treadway et al vs. W. C. McCormick.
Elizabeth Dressel vs. Jacob W. Weakley.
Lillie L. Cooper vs. J. F. Cooper.
Samuel B. Sheeks vs. Elsie Ann Sheeks.
Eugenie Johnson vs. Enoch Gilbert et al.
James C. Fuller vs. James Harden, County Treasurer.
Mary A. Millington vs. James Harden, County Treasurer.
Homer G. Fuller vs. James Harden, County Treasurer.
Sarah E. Parker vs. James Harden, County Treasurer.
Mary L. Jewell vs. William S. Jewell.
The Chicago Lumber Co. vs. Mary R. Lindsay et al.
Travelers Insurance Co. vs. William Dickinson, et al..
Sid S. Majors vs. James H. Vance et al..
Adolphus H. Green vs. William Baird.
H. Jochems vs. H. W. Stubblefield et al..
Benjamin H. Clover vs. Robert F. Burden.
SIXTH
DAY.
Harris Mfg. Co. vs. Jacob W. Thomas et al..
Joseph W. Storrs vs. Isaac N. Davis et al..
Winfield Bank vs. L. C. Harter et al..
Clara B. McKee vs. John S. McKee.
John Farber vs. Sophronia Knox et al..
Lillie B. Wilson vs. Jonas Wilson.
James Jordan vs. Samuel Clark et al.
The First National Bank, Chicago, Ill., vs. L. C. Harter et al..
Francis C. Elkins vs. F. E. Moore et al.
Mitchell & Houston vs. Elisha Bowen.
James Jordan vs. B. H. Clover et al.
M. L. Read vs. William S. Page et al..
E. B. S. Van Ostraw vs. Commissioners Pawnee County.
Ellen Scanlaw vs. Commissioners Pawnee County.
N. B. Freeland vs. Commissioners Pawnee County.
A. W. Miller vs. Commissioners Pawnee County.
J. F. Troxell vs. Commissioners Pawnee County.
Jacob S. Baker vs. Charles Thomas et al.
[COUNTY SALARIES.]
Winfield Courier, November 10, 1881.
DEXTER,
KANSAS, Nov. 2d, ‘81.
EDS. COURIER: Please state through the COURIER the salary of our county officers and oblige SAMUEL HOW.
The salary of the county treasurer of Cowley County during the present term, which terminates in October, 1882, is $4,000 a year, out of which the treasurer pays $900 for clerk hire. This is based on the population of 1880, the last numeration before the commencement of the term, which was in October 1880. The salary of the treasurer just elected will depend upon the enumeration next spring; if it shows 20,000 inhabitants the salary, including clerk hire, will be $4,000 a year for the two years commencing October 1882, but if less than 20,000 inhabitants, the salary will be $3,000 per annum. It is probable, however, that a change will be made in the law next winter.
The county clerk this year gets a salary of only $2,000, including clerk hire. Should the enumeration exceed 20,000 next spring, he will be entitled to $2,500 next year.
The county attorney now gets $1,200 a year under an enumeration of over 18,000 and under 25,000. He also gets fees which are taxed as costs in certain cases.
The school superintendent gets a salary of $1,000, based upon a population of over 4,000 children of school age outside of Winfield, which is the highest grade of salary.
The sheriff gets no salary, but only fees at rates established by law. The income from such sources may reach $4,000 or over; but he has to pay several deputies and pay other heavy expenses, so that his net income is doubtless much smaller than is generally supposed.
The Register of Deeds receives only fees established by law. Years when there is a large amount of conveyancing done, it is probably as good an office for pay as there is in the county.
The Probate Judge get only fees; and therefore his pay depends upon the amount of his business. At present we suppose he gets over $12,000. The commissioners may allow him a salary in addition to his fees, but have not done so.
The Clerk of the District Court gets only fees, which probably amount to over $1,000.
The County Commissioners get $3.00 per day for their work, provided they shall not receive more than $100 each year.
The Coroner gets $3.00 a day and mileage.
Winfield Courier, December 8, 1881.
The four weeks session of the District Court closed Saturday. Judge Torrance crowded an immense amount of work into the session and the docket is cleared.
[BRIDGE
SUITS.]
Winfield Courier, December 8, 1881.
The King Iron Bridge Co. has sued the townships of Vernon, Pleasant Valley, and Walnut, and the City of Winfield in the United States Circuit Court for the sum of $1,879.67 and interest, on five township orders of the old Winfield Township, all issued for building the approaches to the South bridge April 10, 1879, except $330.00, Dec. 31, 1878, for iron bridges. Rossington, Johnston & Smith of Topeka are attorneys for the plaintiff. The petition asks for the appointment of a master in chancery who shall take proof of the territorial extent and taxable property of the parts of the old Winfield Township now in each of the defendant limits and apportion the indebtedness to each, and that an order issue that each of the defendant municipalities pay their proportion immediately. This is in addition to the suit of Carpenter brought by M. G. Troup in the district court of this county for the payment of $2,036.10 of bridge scrip of Winfield Township and interest from October 15, 1881. This is one of the results of bad management in the past in the disruption of Winfield Township. Now there is no other way to pay the indebtedness legally except at the end of a suit in chancery.
Winfield Courier, December 15, 1881.
Hackney and Jennings have been over to Independence this week to attend to cases changed from the district court of this county.