NOTE:
HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO COMPLETE THIS FILE. MAW 3/22/2000
COWLEY
COUNTY DISTRICT COURT.
Years
Covered: 1882,
The Winfield Courier, January 5, 1882.
PUBLICATION NOTICE, DISTRICT COURT. ELIGA WELLS, PLAINTIFF, VS. NANCY J. WELLS, DEFENDANT. DIVORCE PETITION. A. J. PYBURN, ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF.
The Winfield Courier, January 5, 1882.
The case against S. L. Gilbert came off today and Mr. Gilbert was held over to the sum of $100 to appear before the U. S. District court at Topeka.
[EXCHANGES.]
The Winfield Courier, January 5, 1882.
The Enterprise Says That
Burden has two livery and feed stables in running order now.
At the trial held in Burden on last Monday, at Esq. Smith’s office, State vs. Basswater, the defendant was placed under bonds of $500, for his appearance at the next term of the District Court.
Cowley County Courant, January 5, 1882.
Recent cases have been commenced in the District Court as follows: Riggs vs. Stansbury, suit for payment of note; Cotttingham vs. Barnes, appeal.
The Winfield Courier, January 12, 1882.
Suit was begun by the County Attorney Tuesday in the District Court against Mr. McRosey and George Osterhout, of the Adams Express Company, for violation of the prohibitory law. The information charges that they sold liquor in their office. This will be an interesting case as it will likely raise the question of the right of express companies to bring in liquors C. O. D., and collect the pay for the same here.
Cowley County Courant, January 12, 1882.
Charley McClain, who was arrested a few days ago for the stealing of a lot of goods from his employer’s store at Arkansas City, was arraigned before Judge Torrance this afternoon at the adjourned session of the District Court. The defendant plead guilty to the charge of grand larceny, and was sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of one year.
Cowley County Courant, January 19, 1882.
E. S. Bedilion, Clerk of the District Court, is in receipt of the following definite letter of inquiry, and not having been acquainted with the man himself, he gave us the letter to answer.
“FORT WORTH, Jan. 13, 1882. Clerk C. C. Was there such a man lived about ten or twelve years ago in your county and did he marry there the reports are here that he has a wife somewhere in Kansas or in The Nation. He has given my family a great deal of trouble. I should like to know something about him.
“Respectfully, ______________.”
There
was. We knew him well. He lived in Bean-blossom Hollow, and used to catch
skunks for a living. He was the only resident in the county at that time, and
everybody knew him well. He was a brass-mounted son of a gun on wheels, wore a
mutton-chop coat with bean-soup lining, and was known as the “bad man of the
border.”
The last thing we heard of him he stole a sore-eyed dog and had to leave the country. We forget the dog’s name, but think it was “Hunty.” Hunty is dead now, or was a few years ago. He was a great rabbit dog. He never caught any rabbits, but would if he had continued to run. Yes, he was married to an Indian widow with twelve small Indians, and we supposed he was at some agency beating the Government. They had to get up and dust when Hunty got after them. He would make them hunt their holes and then he would smell at the hole and bark. He used to bark, too, whenever he heard the bark of a tree. He is a bad man, and we would advise you not to have anything to do with him.
NOTE: I DO BELIEVE THAT THE EDITOR OF THE COURANT GAVE THE LAST
TWO STORIES MERELY TO FILL SPACE.]
Arkansas City Traveler, January 25, 1882.
The case of Thompson vs. Shepard, before Justice McIntire last week, resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, after a close contest of two days. The case will be taken to the District Court.
Winfield Courier, February 9, 1882.
Skipped Publication Notice, District Court, James Jordan, Plaintiff, vs. W. C. Clark, Lucy Clark, James Corman, G. S. Knowlton, Joshua A. Pierpont, and Sidney S. Tuttle, partners under the firm name of Pierpont & Tuttle, Defendants.
Cowley County Courant, February 16, 1882.
Ed. Bedilion, our clerk of the District Court, is in possession of quite a curiosity in the shape of an old glass fruit dish having a silver American coin of the date of 1827 molded in the stem. Though this dish has been in Mr. Bedilion’s family for ten years, the coin had never been discovered until recently when one of his little girls happened to catch a glimpse of it while playing with the dish. It was an old dish when it came into Mr. Bedilion’s possession and as the coin looks bright and new the dish must be, perhaps, fifty years old.
Winfield Courier, February 16, 1882.
An adjourned term of the District Court will be held next Friday.
Cowley County Courant, February 16, 1882.
Suits have lately been commenced in the District Court as follows.
Mary A. Loomis vs. E. P. Greer, et al, foreclosure of mortgage.
James Biggs vs. Sarah J. Biggs, divorce.
M. L. Robinson vs. C. C. Pierce et al, for collection of warrants issued by old Winfield Township.
M. L. Read vs. Floro E. Covert et al, foreclosure of mortgage.
W. M. Haskett vs. J. S. Hawkins, promissory note.
L. C. Harter vs. Harriet A. Pratt et al.
Cowley County Courant, February 23, 1882.
Information was filed in the District Court yesterday charging John Fleming with unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors. Also charging said Flemming and Drs. H. L. Wells, David V. Cole, and John Headrick for unlawfully prescribing intoxicating liquors. The cases will be tried at the April term. We have no comments to make. The gentlemen are in the hands of the court and entitled to hearing without prejudice anyway. Dr. Cole has given bond and retained J. F. McMullen as attorney. We understand each of the others have also given bond except it may be Dr. Wells.
Cowley County Courant, February 23, 1882.
For some time it has been suspicioned that certain boys in our city [Arkansas City] were pilfering for a living, but who they were, and where to place the hand of correction was not fully settled until about a week ago, when Wyckoff & Son’s store window was broken in and a number of small articles taken out, that could be easily reached through the hole in the glass, and followed in a night or two by the taking of a few dollars from Godfrey’s billiard hall, which stamped George Rice, a boy about seventeen years of age, as leader of the gang.
Constable McIntire and Marshal Sinnott were informed of these facts, and kept a strict watch of nights for nearly a week, and finally, last Tuesday night, captured the lad. They mistrusted by movements during the day that he intended making a raid on the billiard hall that night, and as soon as it was closed, concealed themselves in close proximity to the money drawer and awaited developments.
But they did not have long to wait, for in a few minutes they heard a pane of glass shatter and soon steps were heard approaching the place where they were concealed, and in another moment George Rice loomed up from behind the counter, but before he had time to gobble any of the coveted wealth, he was confronted by a dark lantern and “British bull dog,” and compelled to give in. Wednesday he was brought before the ‘Squire, who placed his bond at $500; but not being able to give the required bail, George Rice was committed to the county jail to await his trial at the next term of the District Court. We believe George was the leader, but that there are other boys in our city who are as deep in the mire as he, and will come to grief if they do not carry themselves straight in the future. Arkansas City Democrat.
[COMMENTS BY COURANT EDITOR.]
We are sorry to say it, but there are about a half dozen boys in this city [Winfield] whose natural guardians are educating them for the penitentiary in a remarkably rapid manner. These boys go to school only when they can’t think of any other place to go to, and spend their evenings into the middle of the night “bumming” around over the streets, cutting up all sorts of deviltry, starting “fires,” and conducting themselves as industrious candidates for the penitentiary do. These boys are from twelve to sixteen years of age and are classed with that American production called “hoodlums.” The older they grow the worse they become. Their parents have abandoned all government of them and left them to run at large like wild beasts. When these parents see their darling sons with steel bracelets on their wrists and in company with the sheriff, or see them the central figures in some public hanging exhibition with black caps on their heads and rope knots under their ears, they may wonder why providence allowed their sons to become so hardened. The names of these boys are known and they are watched. There is a strong suspicion that the fire last night was caused by these examples of a certain parental education, and in all kindness, we would advise these boys to lead respectable lives, be gentlemanly, brave, and manly, and if they have never learned at home what those qualities are, if they will call at the COURANT office we will, in all humility, try and explain to them what a beautiful thing a young “gentleman” is.
Winfield Courier, February 23, 1882.
At a special session of the District Court last Friday, information was filed against Dr. Cole, Dr. Wells, Dr. Hendrick, and Dr. Fleming for unlawfully prescribing intoxicating liquors, and they were arrested and held to bail. All secured bail, and the cases will come up for trial at the April term of the District Court.
Winfield Courier, March 30, 1882.
The following named gentlemen have been drawn as petit jurors for the next term of District Court, which convenes in this city on the fourth Tuesday in April: Henry Gardiner of Cedar Township; S. E. Lewis, J. B. Tucker, and S. B. Fleming of Creswell; Willis Elliott, Samuel Wells, John Moreland, and Frank Moreland, of Liberty; J. D. Hon of Pleasant Valley; Wm. Beeson of Silver Creek; W. P. Heath of Maple.
Cowley County Courant, March 30, 1882.
The following named gentlemen have been drawn as petit jurors for the next term of District Court, which convenes in this city on the fourth Tuesday in April.
Henry Gardner, of Cedar Township.
J. R. Lewis, J. B. Tucker, and S. B. Fleming, of Cresswell.
Willis Elliott, Samuel Wells, John Moreland, and Frank Moreland, of Liberty.
J. D. Hon, of Pleasant Valley.
Wm. Beeson, of Silver Creek.
W. P. Heath, of Maple.
Cowley County Courant, March 30, 1882.
There will be about one hundred and thirty cases stand for trial at the next term of the District Court, which convenes in this county, April 25, 1882.
Cowley County Courant, March 30, 1882.
W. H. Smith, our boot and shoe man, and O. M. Seward, of this city, have been drawn as jurymen at the next term of the United States District Court.
Arkansas City Traveler, April 5, 1882.
The following named gentlemen have been drawn as petit jurors for the next term of District Court, which convenes in Winfield on the fourth Tuesday in April: Henry Gardener, of Cedar Township; J. R. Lewis, J. B. Tucker, and S. B. Fleming, of Creswell Township; Willis Elliott, Samuel Wells, John Moreland, and Frank Moreland of Liberty Township; J. D. Hon of Pleasant Valley Township; Wm. Beeson of Silver Creek; and W. P. Heath of Maple Township.
Cowley County Courant, April 6, 1882.
Capt. J. M. White, of Howard, one of the most studious and hardworking lawyers in Southern Kansas, came over on the Tuesday evening train to attend to some legal business in the Burchfield-Lindley replevin case, tried before Justice Buckman today. Capt. White is ever wide awake in the interest of his client, and if he has half a show, gets everything out of a case there is in it. It will be remembered that White was the attorney for the defense in the case of the State of Kansas vs. Martin Barber, tried in the District Court here in 1877, wherein Barber was tried for shooting his brother in a hotel at Dexter.
Cowley County Courant, April 13, 1882.
About a year ago Ed. Bedilion and some of the other county officers had their fee bills rejected by the County Commissioners under advice of the County Attorney. They appealed to the District Court, which decided that in certain criminal cases where a conviction was not had, the county was not liable for the officers’ costs. An appeal was then taken to the Supreme Court, which has reversed the lower court’s decision, and the boys will get their fees.
Winfield Courier, April 20, 1882.
Recap Publication Notice, District Court of Cowley County. S. E. Schermerhorn, Plaintiff, versus Samuel T. Endicott, Nellie D. Endicott, F. S. Jennings, Travelers Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, A. D. Wear, S. M. Jarvis & R. R. Conklin doing business under the name and stole of Jarvis, Conklin & Co. [Paper had “Endecott” at first. This was later corrected to show “Endicott.” MAW]
To the defendants, A. D. Wear, S. M. Jarvis, and R. R. Conklin in the above entitled action. Sued by Plaintiff (Endicotts) for $231.93 and interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from November 29, 1880, and for costs of suit and foreclosure of mortgage, etc.
Property: West half of Southeast Quarter, and Southwest Quarter and Northeast Quarter, all in Section 35, Township 34, south of Range 4E.
Plaintiffs’ attorney, J. F. McMullen.
Attested to by Cowley Co. District Court Clerk, E. S. Bedilion.
[EDITORIAL
COLUMN.]
Cowley County Courant, April 20, 1882.
The Supreme Court of this State has recently rendered a decision in the case of E. S. Bedilion vs. the Board of County Commissioners of this county. The case went upon an agreed statement of facts. The only object was to obtain a construction of the section, providing for the payment of costs, by the county, in criminal cases. This being a case involving only $5.60 and of no “political significance” was disposed of in a breath by saying the county was liable for the fees of the “Clerk of the District Court.” Does the Supreme Court intend to say that the county is liable for the fees of the Clerk only? Will the balance of the 1,900 fellows throughout the State have to employ lawyers to take their case to the Supreme Court before they can get their little two dollars? Had the Supreme Court just added after the words, “the county is liable for the fees of the Clerk of the District Court” and the other persons named in section 19, laws of 1881, so that us wayfaring fellows could under-stand just what it meant, the decision, not to say court, would be entitled to some respect.
[TRIAL
DOCKET: DISTRICT COURT.]
Cowley County Courant, April 20, 1882.
TRIAL
DOCKET.
The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the April term of the District Court, commencing on the 25th day of April, A. D. 1882.
CRIMINAL DOCKET, FIRST DAY.
1. State vs. Lewis Albright.
2. State vs. J. W. McRorry.
3. State vs. George Ousterhout.
4. State vs. H. L. Wells.
5. State vs. John Headrick.
6. State vs. John Fleming.
7. State vs. John Fleming.
8. State vs. David V. Cole.
9. State vs. Thomas H. Bassywater.
10. State vs. Charles G. Thompson.
11. State vs. W. A. Irwin.
12. State vs. Charles F. Foults.
13. State vs. Charles G. Holland.
14. State vs. Frank Manny.
15. State vs. Henry H. Causey.
16. State vs. James T. Shepard.
CIVIL DOCKET, SECOND DAY.
Mercer M. Funk vs. Cynthia Clark et al.
M. E. Bolton vs. Caroline Arnold.
M. L. Read vs. John J. Breene, et al.
Oscar F. Weeks vs. A T & S F R R Co.
Hackney & McDonald vs. Bolton and Cresswell townships.
S. S. Brettun vs. Jacob G. Titus et al.
A. H. Green vs. E. F. Widner et al.
Daniel Sheel vs. G. E. Brad et al.
C. C. Stevens vs. City of Winfield.
Harrison Harrod vs. Moses Harrod et al.
Chicago Lumber Co. vs. Bolton and Creswell townships.
Mary K. Hoyt vs. Charles G. Hoyt et al.
N. S. Burnham vs. M. O. Burnham.
John J. Clark vs. S. J. Rice et al.
S. E. Yoeman vs. C. Coleman.
Eliza Reihl vs. Joseph Likowski.
Elija Wells vs. Nancy J. Wells.
W. H. Treadway et al vs. W. C. McCormick.
Lillie S. Cooper vs. J. F. Cooper.
James C. Fuller vs. James Hardin, County Treasurer.
Mary A. Millington vs. James Hardin, County Treasurer.
Homer G. Fuller vs. James Hardin, County Treasurer.
Sarah E. Parker vs. James Hardin, County Treasurer.
Ben H. Clover vs. Robt. F. Burden et al.
First National Bank vs. L. C. Harter et al.
James Jordon vs. B. H. Clover et al.
M. L. Read vs. Wm. S. Page et al.
E. B. S. Vanostran vs. Com’r’s of Pawnee County.
Ellen Scanlaw vs. Com’r’s of Pawnee County.
APPEARS THAT THEY, FOR SOME REASON, DID NOT PRINT THIRD DAY???
FOURTH DAY.
N. B. Freeland vs. Com’r’s of Pawnee County.
A. W. Miller vs. Com’r’s of Pawnee County.
J. F. Troxel vs. Com’r’s of Pawnee County.
W. P. Carpenter vs. C. C. Pierce et al.
Hiram Veozy vs. Wm. Frederick et al.
Hibbard A. Tucker vs. A. H. Green.
Frederick A. Foster vs. Wm. W. Whiteside et al.
M. L. Robinson vs. George Easterly et al.
John S. Johnson vs. J. M. Boyles.
Assignment of Ellen F. Stump.
Julia R. Stevens vs. Wm. H. Dinwiddie.
S. D. Skinner vs. O. C. Skinner, 2nd.
Lycurgus Scott vs. Margaret Wear.
Geo. W. Chaplin vs. John Garrabee et al.
A. Furst & Co. vs. F. T. Sanford et al.
A. J. Pyburn vs. N. W. Fitzgerald.
Missouri A. Mann vs. Adam Mann.
J. A. Cooper & Co. vs. E. J. Cooper.
FIFTH DAY.
J. R. Cottingham vs. James Burns.
W. H. Riggs et al vs. H. M. Stransburry et al.
D. B. Meridith vs. J. E. Dickinson et al.
Assignment of Daniel Reed.
Jacob Binkley et al vs. R. Hanlan. [3 times]
Jacob Binkley et al vs. W. Metzger.
Houghton & Speers vs. Jas. Hardin, County Treasurer.
H. Jochems vs. R. Tegart.
A. W. Goodell vs. W. Gibson et al.
Charles Hutchins vs. F. T. Sanford et al.
Thompson Wise & Co. vs. Wm. Whitney.
Ezra Bartlett vs. A. B. Steinberger.
B. A. Waldron vs. W. Warren et al.
Malvina Stocking vs. Horace Stocking.
W. C. Robinson vs. Andrew J. Cress.
John S. Parr vs. Wm. W. Ward et al.
SIXTH DAY.
R. P. Jennings vs. Martha J. Miller et al.
F. V. Ray vs. M. C. Ray.
W. J. H. Pallard vs. S. C. Cunningham et al.
James Jordan vs. W. D. Clark et al.
E. R. Thompson vs. Jas. T. Shepard.
A. D. Wear vs. C. E. Victory et al.
Phoney Kirk vs. Andrew Kirk.
Joel Jackson vs. R. A. Robinson et al.
C. G. Oliver vs. Malinda Clay et al.
L. C. Harter vs. H. A. Pratt et al.
W. M. Haskett vs. J. S. Hawkins.
M. L. Read vs. Flora E. Covert et al.
M. L. Robinson vs. C. C. Pierce et al.
James Biggs vs. Sarah J. Biggs.
Mary A. Loomis vs. E. P. Greer et al.
Amanda J. Hanson vs. John C. Hanson.
Mathew Chambers vs. Peter Myers.
E. Downie & Co. vs. John A. Earnest.
SEVENTH DAY.
Joseph E. Lowes vs. Anthony Hanna et al.
Travelers Insurance Co. vs. Chas. F. Snow et al.
Travelers Insurance Co. vs. Mary E. Shriver et al.
Travelers Insurance Co. vs. Wm. W. Craile et al.
Travelers Insurance Co. vs. Geo. M. Bowen et al.
Travelers Insurance Co. vs. James E. Bunce et al.
Wm. C. Hastings vs. A. H. Sylvester et al.
Travelers Insurance Co. vs. A. A. Shock et al.
Travelers Insurance Co. vs. D. M. Harper et al.
Travelers Insurance Co. vs. Peter L. Loy et al.
Travelers Insurance Co. vs. John C. Stratton et al.
Wm. H. Hastings vs. John W. Nolte et al.
Travelers Insurance Co. vs. B. F. Strickland et al.
Travelers Insurance Co. vs. Wm. Hemphill et al.
Geo. W. Moore vs. Henry T. Jackson et al.
Travelers Insurance Co. vs. Isaac Brown et al.
EIGHTH DAY.
Travelers Insurance Co. vs. Geo. W. Mercer et al.
Travelers Insurance Co. vs. A. B. Henthorn et al.
Winfield Bank vs. Phillip Stump et al.
Lillie L. Cooper vs. John F. Cooper.
Nelson Gunsaulis vs. Harriet Gunsaulis.
Chas. A. Hill vs. John France et al.
Moline Plow Co. vs. S. J. Sherrod.
Matilda Ennis vs. Alexander Ennis.
E. M. Gordon vs. Andrew Gordon.
A. A. Wiley vs. Harriet A. Doty et al.
Isaac White vs. James S. Gilkey.
Mary Lowes vs. Wm. Gould et al.
N. H. Banking Co. vs. E. T. Haycraft et al.
Hartford Insurance Co. vs. David Shock et al.
Nashua Savings Bank vs. A. H. Caywood et al.
F. R. Foster vs. Joseph E. Curd et al.
R. R. Conklin vs. Geo W. Wilson et al.
Jarvis, Conklin & Co. vs. Geo. R. Waters et al.
NINTH DAY.
Hartford Insurance Co. vs. Mary Murray.
N. H. Banking Co. vs. Jno. M. Sargent et al.
S. M. Jarvis vs. Silas A. Berry et al.
Nashua Savings Bank vs. Robert N. Craine.
A. D. Wear vs. Hozea T. Kizer et al.
A. D. Wear vs. Henry C. Gray.
Annie S. Hamilton vs. J. W. Hamilton.
E. N. Darling vs. H. O. Meigs et al.
Edwin S. Mount vs. Henry Mount et al.
Lydia A. Thorpe vs. Newton I. Thorpe.
S. E. Schemerhorn vs. S. T. Endicott et al.
Joseph Merick vs. A. C. Williams et al.
W. C. Scranton vs. C. G. Handy et al.
Chas. C. Black et al vs. Jno. R. Smith et al.
R. C. Haywood vs. C. M. Scott.
Chas. C. Black vs. Wm. H. Richardson et al.
Geo. P. Wagoner vs. Frank W. Finch.
E. S. BEDILLION, Clerk.
NOTE: THEY NUMBERED CIVIL DOCKET CASES...137 IN ALL.
NOTE:
SAME ISSUE OF COURANT [APRIL 20, 1882] ALSO HAD A BREAKDOWN ON THE
COMMISSIONER’S PROCEEDINGS...DID NOT COPY...VERY SMALL PRINT!
HOWEVER,
THEY HAD SOME INTERESTING SUB-HEADINGS!
1. STATE OF KANSAS VS. W. C. BAIRD.
2. IN THE MATTER OF INSANITY OF THOS. J. SHEDDAN.
3. STATE OF KANSAS VS. CHAS. McLAIN.
4. LIBBY & MOODY VS. JAMES HARDEN.
5. STATE OF KANSAS VS. GEO. RICE.
6. STATE OF KANSAS VS. SHEEL.
7. STATE OF KANSAS VS. THEO. MILLER, FEE BILL.
8. STATE OF KANSAS VS. EDMUND LEWELLEN.
EACH CASE SHOWED MONEY PAID FOR JUSTICES, SHERIFF, JURORS, WITNESSES, ETC.
[APRIL TERM DISTRICT COURT.]
Winfield Courier, April 20, 1882.
TRIAL DOCKET.
The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the April term of the District Court, commencing on the 25th day of April, A. D. 1882.
CRIMINAL DOCKET, FIRST DAY.
1. State vs. Lewis Albright.
2. State vs. J. W. McRorry.
3. State vs. George Ousterhout.
4. State vs. H. L. Wells.
5. State vs. John Headrick.
6. State vs. John Fleming.
7. State vs. John Fleming.
8. State vs. David V. Cole.
9. State vs. Thomas H. Bassywater.
10. State vs. Charles G. Thompson.
11. State vs. W. A. Irwin.
12. State vs. Charles F. Foults.
13. State vs. Charles G. Holland.
14. State vs. Frank Manny.
15. State vs. Henry H. Causey.
16. State vs. James T. Shepard.
CIVIL DOCKET, SECOND DAY.
1. Mercy M. Funk vs. Cynthia Clark et al.
2. M. E. Bolton vs. Caroline Arnold.
3. M. L. Read vs. John J. Breene et al.
4. Oscar F. Weeks vs. A. T. & S. F. R. R. Co.
5. Hackney & McDonald vs. Bolton and Creswell Townships.
6. S. S. Brettun vs. Jacob G. Titus et al.
7. A. H. Green vs. E. F. Widner et al.
8. Daniel Sheel vs. G. E. Brad et al.
9. C. C. Stevens vs. City of Winfield.
10. Harrison Harrod vs. Moses Harrod et al.
11. Chicago Lumber Co. Vs. Bolton and Creswell townships.
12. Mary K. Hoyt vs. Charles G. Hoyt et al.
13. N. S. Burnham vs. M. O. Burnham.
14. John J. Clark vs. S. J. Rice et al.
15. S. E. Yoeman vs. C. Coleman.
16. Eliza Reihl vs. Joseph Likowski.
17. Elija Wells vs. Nancy J. Wells.
18. W. H. Treadway et al vs. W. C. McCormick.
19. Lillie S. Cooper vs. J. F. Cooper.
20. James C. Fuller vs. James Hardin, County Treasurer.
21. Mary A. Millington vs. James Hardin, County Treasurer.
22. Homer G. Fuller vs. James Hardin, County Treasurer.
23. Sarah E. Parker vs. James Hardin, County Treasurer.
25. Ben H. Clover vs. Robert F. Burden et al.
26. First National Bank vs. L. C. Harter et al.
27. James Jordon vs. B. H. Clover et al.
28. M. L. Read vs. Wm. S. Page et al.
29. E. B. S. Vanostran vs. Com’r’s of Pawnee County.
30. Ellen Scanlaw vs. Com’r’s of Pawnee County.
[Note: Third Day not listed.]
CIVIL DOCKET. FOURTH DAY.
31. N. B. Freeland vs. Com’r’s of Pawnee County.
32. A. W. Miller vs. Com’r’s of Pawnee County.
33. J. F. Troxel vs. Com’r’s of Pawnee County.
34. W. P. Carpenter vs. C. C. Pierce et al.
35. Hiram Veozy vs. Wm. Frederick et al.
36. Hibbard A. Tucker vs. A. H. Green.
37. Frederick A. Foster vs. Wm. W. Whiteside et al.
38. M. L. Robinson vs. George Easterly et al.
39. John S. Johnson vs. J. M. Boyles.
40. Assignment of Ellen F. Stump.
41 Julia R. Stevens vs. Wm. H. Dinwiddie.
42. S. D. Skinner vs. O. C. Skinner, 2nd.
43 Lycurgus Scott vs. Margaret Wear.
44. Geo. W. Chaplin vs. John Garrahee et al.
45. A. Furst & Co. vs. F. T. Sanford et al.
46. A. J. Pyburn vs. N. W. Fitzgerald.
47. Missouri A. Mann vs. Adam Mann.
48. J. A. Cooper & Co. vs. E. J. Cooper.
CIVIL DOCKET. FIFTH DAY.
49. J. R. Cottingham vs. James Burns.
50. W. H. Riggs et al vs. H. M. Stransburry et al.
51. D. B. Meridith vs. J. E. Dickinson et al.
52. Assignment of Daniel Reed.
53. Jacob Binkley et al vs. R. Hanlan.
54. Jacob Blakley et al vs. J. Hanlan.
55. Jacob Binkley et al vs. S. Hanlan.
56. Jacob Binkley et al vs. W. Metzger
57. Houghton & Speers vs. Jas. Hardin (County Treasurer).
58. H. Jochems vs. R. Tegart.
59. A. W. Goodell vs. W. Gibson et al.
60. Charles Hutchins vs. F. T. Sanford et al.
61. Thompson, Wise & Co., vs. Wm. Whitney.
62. Ezra Bartlett vs. A. B. Steinberger.
63. B. A. Waldron vs. W. Warren et al.
64. Malvina Stocking vs. Horace Stocking.
65. W. C. Robinson vs. Andrew J. Cress.
66. John S. Parr vs. Wm. W. Ward et al.
CIVIL DOCKET. SIXTH DAY.
67. R. P. Jennings vs. Martha J. Miller et al.
68. F. V. Ray vs. M. C. Ray.
69. W. J. H. Pallard vs. S. C. Cunnigham et al.
70. James Jordan vs. W. D. Clark et al.
71. E. R. Thompson vs. Jas. T. Shepard.
72. A. D. Wear vs. C. E. Victory et al.
73. Phoney Kirk vs. Andrew Kirk.
74. Joel Jackson vs. R. A. Robinson et al.
75. C. G. Oliver vs. Malinda Clay et al.
76. L. C. Harter vs. H. A. Pratt et al.
77. W. M. Haskett vs. J. S. Hawkins.
78. M. L read vs. Flora E. Covert et al.
79. M. L. Robinson vs. C. C. Pierce et al.
80. James Biggs vs. Sarah J. Biggs.
81. Mary A. Loomis vs. E. P. Greer et al.
82. Amanda J. Hanson vs. John C. Hanson.
83. Mathew Chambers vs. Peter Myers.
84. E. Downie & Co., vs. John A. Earnest.
CIVIL DOCKET. SEVENTH DAY.
85. Joseph E. Lowes vs. Anthony Hanna et al.
86. Travelers Insurance Co. vs. Chas. F. Snow et al.
[Note: Did not continue. There were Nine Days of Court, 137 issued. MAW]
No. 131. S. E. Schemerhorn vs. S. T. Endicott.
No. 135. R. C. Haywood vs. C. M. Scott.
Winfield Courier, May 4, 1882.
The district court has been grinding along slowly this week. The jury in the Cansey trial returned a verdict of assault and battery and Cansey was fined $100, and costs. The case against Dr. Fleming for unlawfully selling liquor was nullified. In the case against him for unlawfully prescribing, the court instructed the jury to bring in a verdict of “not guilty.” A new lot of special jurors were drawn. The following are the gentlemen selected: Justice Fisher, H. S. Buckner, John Bowen, A. Hurst, J. W. Hiatt, A. Balwin, [Baldwin?], C. S. Weatherholt, John Crap, [Crapster?], Calvin Sturm, Daniel Campbell, Isaac Schurtz, R. W. Stephens, C. F. Harper, J. B. Tucker, M. A. Graham, A. V. Carvin, A. J. Walk, David G. Lewis, Levi Wymer, David Meriden, D. S. Sherrard, V. Hawkins, and Chas. C. Smith.
Cowley County Courant, May 4, 1882.
The whiskey cases have been dragging their tiresome lengths through the District court now in session here, since Tuesday of last week, and up to the present writing (Wednesday afternoon) four cases have been disposed of and the case of Dr. Wells is pending. The two cases against Dr. Fleming came up Tuesday, one was thrown out of court after the jury had been empaneled, and the other was tried up to the time for the jury to retire, when the Judge instructed the foreman of the jury to sign a verdict of not guilty, which he did, and the defendant was discharged. The case against McRorey was dismissed without going to trial. The costs accumulated up to the present time are something like $500 or $600, and still there is no money added to the school fund in the way of fines. The taxpayers may murmur a little after awhile when these bills are to be paid, but then they will have the consolation of knowing that the Saint John agents at this place have had that much fun. We shall endeavor to furnish a full account of the trials in due time.
Cowley County Courant, May 4, 1882.
One of the M. D.’s of Arkansas City, who is attending the district court in self-defense, writes a long and well written article in the Arkansas Valley Democrat, in the course of which he says: “Besides my legal counsel, I have many friends and advisors. One advises me to plead guilty, pay my fine, and breathe the free air once more. Another advises me to plead insanity, with the unanswerable argument that I voted for the law and contributed of my hard earned cash to the fund for my own prosecution.” A point well taken.
Cowley County Courant, May 11, 1882.
The Saint John school fund theory is not panning out very flattering at the present term of District Court in Cowley County. Whether it is the fault of the Governor’s pet law he talks so much about, or the fault of his agents here, we are not prepared to say at present, but it is a fact out of fourteen criminal cases which have come up for trial, the fines assessed cannot yield more than about $500.00 to the school fund, while the costs which will have to be paid by the county will not be less than $1,500.00 or $2,000.00. The balance seems to be on the wrong side this whirl.
Winfield Courier, May 18, 1882.
W. P.’S LETTER DID NOT DO IT.
Last week Fritz Snitzler, the great Wichita Saloonist, who catechized Hackney so beautifully, was tried before ’Squire Thomas for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law, found guilty, and fined $100 and costs. He appealed to the district court. W. W. Rupp was arrested on a similar charge, on a warrant issued by the same justice, and he will be tried on the 18th inst.
[DISTRICT COURT.]
Winfield Courier, May 18, 1882.
DISTRICT COURT.
The district court adjourned on Monday, having been in session three weeks. We hear some complaints that most of the time of the court was taken up with the doctors’ cases and that in them nothing was accomplished but the running up of a bill of expense. Four of the doctors were acquitted, one was convicted and granted a new trial and continued, and one was continued because the jury failed to agree. The results of the session were very unsatis-factory to the people, the bar, and the court, but if there was any blame, we are not yet prepared to locate it. We know one thing which is that the judge came here after a continuous six week’s work without interruption in other counties, that these were a new kind of case, involving many unfamiliar points of law, and that the judge studied day and night to so inform himself on the new phases developed so as to be sure to make correct decisions. We know that all this arduous work had worn him about out and that he ought not to have held such a court without having a week’s vacation and relaxation. The fact is that there is too much work in this district at present for any one judge, and 100,000 inhabitants in six counties is too great a district anyway. The average population of the Kansas districts is 58,600, some of them less than 50,000, but this district has almost a double portion. We have no doubt that the judge would have moved business off much faster had he been fresh from a vacation. We cannot give the cost in figures and the results until next week. We intend to inquire into the matter to discover what was wrong and what the remedy.
Winfield Courier, May 18, 1882.
DIVORCED. Monday was “divorce day” in the district court. The bonds of matrimony existing between Lydia A. Tharp and Newton Tharp were dissolved and Lydia was given the custody of a minor child. Mr. and Mrs. Biggs were also declared “off.” Mr. and Mrs. Wells, who resided near New Salem, were also divorced. Mrs. Ennis was given a divorce from her husband, likewise Mrs. Lillie Cooper.
Cowley County Courant, May 25, 1882.
The Courier might relieve itself of much ignorance by looking through the office of the clerk of the District Court and examine the fee bills born from the recent whiskey prose-cutions. The jury and witness fees alone, we are informed by Mr. Bedilion, amount to over $1,700.00. Our esteemed contemporary is trying to cover up the utter failure of these prosecutions by ridicule and a lot of foolish talk about the way it is prepared to fight. In discussing these questions, a paper should have the manhood to speak out its honest sentiments, whether it believes its ideas popular or not.
Winfield Courier, May 25, 1882.
THE PROHIBITION CASES—THE QUESTION OF THEIR COST.
We have examined the records of the late term of the District Court and find there were fourteen cases on the docket for violation of the prohibition law. Of these, five were dismissed or tried and found “not guilty,” and nine were continued to be tried at the next term. One of these was tried and the jury did not agree, and another was found guilty but the court granted a new trial. In the whole fourteen cases the witness fees as claimed amount to $840.00, but this amount will not be allowed, for witnesses claimed for full time in each of several cases. We suppose they cannot charge the county at least for more than one per diem for each day’s attendance. Should the county have all this to pay, it will not probably amount to $400.
The whole cost of juries for the term is $1,137.20, of which $264 is charged to three other cases and as much more would come out of the county had there been no prohibition cases on the docket. The total jury fees properly charged to these fourteen cases would be about $600. The clerks’ and sheriff’s fees chargeable to these cases amount to about $200, making a total of $1,200 of costs which the county might have to pay for the term on account of these fourteen prosecutions. The costs properly chargeable to the five cases disposed of is about $150 and this the county will not have to pay. The balance, about $1,050, may be collected of the defendants at the final trial.
Now we do not pretend that the above figures are exact, for the clerk informs us that it is impossible to get the exact figures until the final disposal, for the returns are not all in and of those figures which are given some are liable to be retaxed.
When these cases come up again for trial, they will be quickly disposed of and the additional costs will not be great. These cases presented an entirely new phase of pleadings and much of the time of the late court was taken up in examining and settling the pleadings and determining what they should be. Much time was spent in debating and determining what evidence was admissible. All these matters are determined and now the attorneys will know just what to do and will do it at once. There is nothing in this matter that should deter the prosecuting attorney from doing his sworn duty in cases where he has what appears to be evidence of the violation of this or any other law.
Winfield Courier, May 25, 1882.
In the suit between Cronk and Constant, of Pleasant Valley Township, before ‘Squire Soward last week, the jury brought in a verdict of guilty against Constant for tearing down a fence built by Cronk on a disputed strip of land between their farms. Mr. Constant was fined ten dollars, but appealed the case to the district court.
Winfield Courier, May 25, 1882.
Mr. L. A. Millspaugh, of Vernon Township, will be a candidate for Clerk of the District Court, before the Republican convention this fall. L. A. Is one of the bright young men of our county, and is abundantly qualified to fill the position. He is a practicing attorney, having been admitted to the bar in Burlington, Iowa, and in this county.
Arkansas City Traveler, May 31, 1882.
We received a pleasant call last week from Mr. L. A. Millspaugh, of Vernon Township, who stated that he would be a candidate for Clerk of the District Court before the Republican Convention this fall. Mr. Millspaugh is a promising young lawyer, and has been admitted to the bar at Burlington, Iowa, and in this county, and is well fitted for the office he seeks.
[HATCHETT.]
Cowley County Courant, June 1, 1882.
When a Southern Kansas man turns himself loose, there is no use trying to stop him, as he will go through without feeling. It will be remembered that our little neighboring town of Grenola, just east of the Cowley County line, just about a year ago furnished one of the finest sensations of the season, and at the time such remarks as “He did it with his little hatchet,” and “such is happiness in the far west,” were rife throughout that section of country. In fact the newspapers over there were really blessed with an actually real item, upon which their clamoring publishers wrote many a handsome “piece.”
A man by the name of Hatchett, who was keeping a hotel in Grenola, became very familiar with a young lady named Beard, who, if we remember rightly, was his cousin or some other relative. After they had been so thick that the neighbors began talking of the future possibilities, Hatchett concluded he would not linger longer in that section, and one day left to seek a more genial clime. The girl’s father, a respectable farmer of Elk County, about this time discovered that his daughter was to some extent in need of a parent’s advice and protection, so he swore out a warrant, or had the girl do it, for Hatchett, and search was instigated for him at once. He was found up at Mulvane, arrested, and taken back to Grenola for trial. The Justice before whom he was arraigned, held that he had better linger about until District Court convened, but through some compromise, by which he agreed to provide for the young lady and her little Hatchett, he was liberated, and he again skipped, we believe without keeping his word in regard to the compromise. Several weeks passed and no word was received from him, though his re-arrest had been ordered by the court. One Sunday there were two men who stopped at the Lindell Hotel in Howard for dinner, and upon close observation, one of them was discovered to be Hatchett. He was promptly re-arrested, and after being taken to Grenola, was again liberated either through the incompetency of the prosecution, or some technicality.
Since that time there has been but little thought given to him. But after all his sad experience, Hatchett would not let up on his old tricks, and now we learn that he was arrested in Leavenworth last Saturday, and is languishing within the dingy cells. The Times of Sunday gives the following report of his arrest, which savors very much of one of Hatchett’s tricks. There is still some mystery connected with his last break.
The Times says: “One week ago Friday night there arrived in this city, by the Missouri Pacific, a girl aged probably fifteen to twenty years, accompanied by a man of about forty years of age. Saturday afternoon Officer Murphy met the couple, and was at once attracted by the close resemblance of the girl to Miss Zou Watkins, the Denver young lady, who so mysteriously disappeared from St. Louis, where she had been visiting on the Thursday preceding. The girl’s dress, its trimming, her build, her age, her hair, her nose, her round, full face, everything about her that could be taken in at a glance, corresponded with the description of the missing girl. With his customary shrewdness Officer Murphy began to watch the couple, and to hunt up something about them. Their actions only caused greater suspicion, and enveloped them in deeper mystery. At last they were located in a room on fifth street, between Seneca and Miami, which they had secured at a rental of five dollars a month. Saturday and Sunday they ate their meals on Cherokee street, but on Monday they moved their eating place to the restaurant opposite John Hannon’s store on Fifth street, near Shawnee. Mr. Murphy met them several times, and each time they watched him with a sort of suspicious restlessness that betokened that they knew someone had discovered them in something wrong. After watching them several days, and becoming satisfied that all was not right, Officers Murphy and Cunningham yesterday morning went to the room on Fifth street to arrest the parties, only to find that the girl had flown or been stowed away in some un-known place. After he was arrested, the man, who gave his name as W. B. Hatchett, told the police that the young woman was his wife and that he had sent her away last month; then he said she was his niece, and that she had gone away, where he did not know. He told other very contradictory stories, and not being able to give an account of himself, he was put down below in the city jail to answer to the court.”
Winfield Courier, July 6, 1882.
Joseph E. Powell, the boy who stole a horse in Richland Township, plead guilty, at an adjourned term of the District Court held Wednesday, and was sentenced to the state reform school until discharged by due process of law.
[POLITICAL ANNOUNCEMENTS.]
Winfield Courier, July 6, 1882.
Recap: Information re candidates for county offices.
E. S. Bedilion, Candidate for Re-Election as Clerk of District Court.
“. . . held the office for several years and his promptness, accuracy, and gentlemanly deportment have met with the highest commendations from those who have had business with him. The court and attorneys all speak in his praise. His long experience in the position, his efficiency, and pure personal character are worth something to the people of this county. He is not a politician and the duties of his office will prevent his making a personal canvass for the nomination, but none the less will he be happy if he receives it.
L. A. Millspaugh, Vernon Township, Candidate for Clerk of District Court.
“He is a bright, energetic young man of pure moral character, and very popular where he is known. He has a first-class education and fine business qualities. A gentleman by instinct and education, a Republican from intelligent convictions and associations, he is a worker who will make his mark in the annals of the county and state and, though young, we predict for him a bright future.
Arkansas City Traveler, July 12, 1882.
Mr. E. S. Bedilion announces himself a candidate for re-election to the office of Clerk of the District Court in this issue. Mr. Bedilion has held the office several years, and is too well known to need any recommendations at our hands. His many friends all over the county bear tribute to his fitness for the office he seeks.
Arkansas City Traveler, July 12, 1882.
Mr. L. A. Millspaugh, of Vernon Township, announces himself a candidate for the office of Clerk of the District Court. Mr. Millspaugh is a young man of energy and good moral character, a staunch Republican, and a gentleman fully competent in every way to discharge the duties of the office for which he is a candidate.
Winfield Courier, July 13, 1882. Editorial Page.
Chas. E. Steuven, candidate for Clerk of District Court.
Charles E. Steuven was a Union soldier, having served during the war in the 1st Iowa and 82nd Illinois for 4 years and 4 months, and arose to the rank of Captain. He was in all the great battles of the east and was with Sherman on his march to the sea. He was severely wounded at Chancellorsville and at Peach Tree Creek. He served till the close of the war and was honorably discharged. He has been a resident of Winfield for the last five years and has always been an active Republican. He is now the Colonel of the Cowley County Veteran Regiment. There is no doubt of his qualifications for the office he seeks, and if elected, will make a faithful and efficient officer.”
Arkansas City Traveler, August 2, 1882.
Hon. Jas. Kelley and Capt. Chas. Steuven, of Winfield, were in town last Thursday. Capt. Steuven is a candidate for the office of clerk of the District Court. His title was earned in armed service, which gives him considerable prestige among the old soldiers of this county.
Arkansas City Traveler, August 2, 1882.
E. S. Bedilion, clerk of the District Court, and H. D. Gans, Probate Judge, were in town last week. They are candidates for re-election to their respective offices. Mr. Bedilion has acted in his present capacity for nine years, his conduct being such that the people whom he served have had no desire to dismiss so valuable a servant.
Judge Gans has been Probate Judge for several years, and has made hosts of friends among the people of the county.
If these gentlemen are made the choice of the County Convention, all Republicans will delight in supporting them.
Arkansas City Traveler, August 9, 1882. [Editorial Column.]
The County Republican Convention met in Winfield on last Saturday, and was called to order at 10 o’clock a.m. by D. A. Millington. The temporary organization was effected by the election of Samuel Strong, of Rock, temporary Chairman, and W. D. Mowry, of Creswell, as temporary Secretary. After the appointment of the usual committees, the Convention adjourned until 1 o’clock p.m. The Convention was called to order at the appointed time, and the temporary organization was made permanent. The several committees then made their respective reports, which were acted upon, and the Convention then proceeded to the nominations of County officers. There were eighty-seven delegates in the Convention, each township being fully represented.
For the office of Clerk of the District Court, E. S. Bedilion was nominated by a vote of sixty-seven to twenty in favor of Mr. Millspaugh, of Vernon township.
Winfield Courier, August 10, 1882.
FROM RECAP OF REPUBLICAN COUNTY CONVENTION, HELD AT THE OPERA HOUSE IN WINFIELD, SATURDAY, AUGUST 5, 1882, AT 10:00 A..M., CALLED TO ORDER BY D. A. MILLINGTON, CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNTY COMMITTEE.
Clerk of District Court Results: E. S. Bedilion 63, L. A. Millspaugh 22.
[GREENBACK CONVENTION.]
Winfield Courier, August 24, 1882.
Greenback Convention.
The mass convention called for last Saturday met, as per agreement, and after taking up a collection proceeded to nominate a county ticket as follows.
For Clerk of the District Court: A. G. Wilson.
[LEGAL NOTICES.]
Winfield Courier, September 14, 1882.
ASSIGNEE’S NOTICE. ALBERT P. JOHNSON, ASSIGNEE, IN THE MATTER OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF ELLEN F. STUMP.
Creditors and all other persons interested in the above named estate are here by notified that on Tuesday, the 7th day of November, 1882, the undersigned, Assignee of said Ellen F. Stump, will make application to the District Court of Cowley County, Kansas for an order discharging him from said trust. ALBERT P. JOHNSON, Assignee. [Sept. 2, 1882.]
Winfield Courier, September 14, 1882.
J. Wade McDonald, Attorney for Plaintiff, District Court, M. L. Robinson versus John H. Robinson and Milley A. Robinson...Amount $890.50 with 12% per annum interest from March 18, 1878...Lien on Real Estate.
Winfield Courier, October 19, 1882.
It Does Prohibit a Little.
Ed. Weitzell was tried last week before Justice Buckman for selling beer and whiskey contrary to law. The trial lasted three days. Jennings & Troup and Henry E. Asp prosecuted and J. Wade McDonald and S. D. Pryor defended. Saturday evening the jury of twelve, after consulting two or three hours, brought in a verdict of guilty. The Justice assessed a fine of $200, and costs. The costs, attorney’s fees, and some little outside matters which he would not like to mention, must have cost him about $250, and there are yet five complaints against him to be tried. He took an appeal with a thousand dollar bond. If tried in the District Court, the witness who happened (?) to be absent will be present, there will be no doubt about the result, and it will probably cost him $1,000 in all. Frank Manny says that Ed. was an officer of the Good Templars and a warm advocate of the prohibition amendment and that he is now taking his own medicine so he must not squeal.
It seems that Ed. commenced selling at his hotel stand, which he was using as a billiard hall, during fair week. He hired W. D. Smith to tend bar for him at $25 per month. He kept his business so close that it did not get out on him until last week. He had then sold intoxicat-ing liquors to the amount of about $60. Frank Jennings got hold of it, investigated the matter, and made six complaints against him and one against the boy, Smith, his bar tender. Ed. got bail for himself, but let Smith go to jail. Ed. was tried on one case, convicted and fined $200, and cost. Smith plead guilty and was fined $100. Ed. then plead guilty on another complaint and was fined $100. The fines and costs in all amounted to over $600, besides attorney fees and other expenses, with four complaints standing against. Verily the way of the transgressor is hard.
COWLEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT.]
Winfield Courier, November 9, 1882.
BAR DOCKET.
November A. D. 1882 Term, Cowley County Distict Court, to be Begun and holden on and From the 14th Day of November, A. D. 1882.
CRIMINAL DOCKET—FIRST DAY.
No.
299. STATE VS. HOMER l. WELLS.
303. STATE VS. DAVID V. COLE.
305. STATE VS. THOS. H. BASSYWATHER.
300. STATE VS. CHAS. G. HOLLAND.
310. STATE VS. FRANK MANNY.
312. STATE VS. JAS. T. SHEPARD.
315. STATE VS. CHAS. G. THOMPSON.
316. STATE VS. DAVID V. COLE.
317. STATE VS. TERRILL G. WRIGHT.
318. STATE VS. JOHN HEADRICK.
320. STATE VS. RILEY CONSTANT, ET AL.
322. STATE VS. MILTON HURST.
323. STATE VS. THOMAS QUARLES.
324. STATE VS. CHESTER VAN METER.
325. STATE VS. WILLIAM H. COLGATE.
326. STATE VS. CHESTER VAN METER.
327. STATE VS. CHESTER VAN METER.
329. STATE VS. JAMES M. HAMIL.
330. STATE VS. THOS. QUARLES.
331. STATE VS. ANNA QUARLES.
332. STATE VS. HAMLIN BARLOW.
[DID NOT GO FURTHER AND LIST CIVIL DOCKET....THEY SHOWED FIVE DAYS FOR IT.]
[BAR DOCKET: NOVEMBER TERM, 1882.]
Arkansas City Traveler, November 15, 1882.
BAR
DOCKET.
November A. D. 1882 Term, Cowley County District Court, to be begun and holden on and from the 14th day of November, A. D. 1882.
CRIMINAL DOCKET—FIRST DAY.
STATE VERSUS
Homer L. Wells
David V. Cole
Thos. H. Bassywather.
Chas. G. Holland.
Frank Macoy.
Jas. T. Shepard.
Chas. G. Thompson.
David V. Cole.
Terril G. Wright.
John Headrick.
Riley Constant, et al.
Milton Hurst.
Thomas Quarles.
Chester Van Meter.
William H. Colgate.
Chester Van Meter.
James M. Hamil.
Anna Quarles.
Hamlin Barlow.
Skipped the Civil Dockets.
Winfield Courier, November 16, 1882.
PORTION OF THE OFFICIAL VOTE OF COWLEY COUNTY.
H. D. GANS, REPUBLICAN, DEFEATED J. H. WORDEN, GREENBACK AND DEMOCRAT...2,273 TO 1,646. [PROBATE JUDGE.]
F. S. JENNINGS, REPUBLICAN, DEFEATED W. A. TIPTON, GREENBACK AND DEMOCRAT...2,203 TO 1,725. [COUNTY ATTORNEY.]
E. S. BEDILION, REPUBLICAN, DEFEATED A. G. WILSON, GREENBACK AND DEMOCRAT...23,260 TO 1,696. [CLERK DISTRICT COURT.]
Winfield Courier, November 16, 1882.
Judge B. L. Brush is in the city attending district court. He doesn’t look a whit less jolly than before he was elected county attorney of Elk County.
[COLGATE CASE.]
Winfield Courier, November 30, 1882.
A large number of ladies were present at the argument of the Colgate case. Many of them sat through the tedious proceedings during almost the whole case.
Our reporter has attended the Colgate case regularly, and next week (if the case is concluded) will give an extended resume of the testimony and his impressions thereof.
The charge delivered by Judge Torrance to the jury in the Colgate case is the finest legal document ever prepared in this or any other district court. It is a thorough, masterly document, and reflects great credit upon our Judge.
The stoves at the Courthouse smoked terribly Tuesday, so much so as to nearly suffocate the court. The chimneys are built between the combs of the roof in such a manner as to create a downward draft when the wind comes from northwest. Something should be done to make the room tenable when needed.
Winfield Courier, November 30, 1882.
The experience of the present term of the District Court speaks in thunder tones of the necessity of a separation of the civil and criminal courts. Their divorcement would be a blessing to our district pecuniarily. Why wait for years to do what should be done now? The coming legislature should give us more terms; or as we think, more courts.
Note: Establishment of U. S. District Court at Wichita...
[U. S. DISTRICT COURT AT WICHITA ESTABLISHED.]
Arkansas City Traveler, January 17, 1883.
The bill providing for the holding of U. S. District court at Wichita has passed both Houses of Congress, and will no doubt soon receive the President’s signature. It provides that there shall be a term of the U. S. District Court for the district of Kansas at Wichita, in each year on the first Monday in September. The city or county authorities are to provide a suitable building for the court, and its officers without expense to the United States. The bill provides that all that part of the Territory lying north of the Canadian River and east of the Panhandle of Texas and 100th [?] meridian not set apart and occupied by the Cherokee, Creek, and Seminole Indian tribes, shall, from and after the passage of this act, be annexed to and constitutes part of the United States Judicial District of Kansas, and the U. S. Courts at Wichita and Ft. Scott, in the district of Kansas, shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of all offenses committed within the limits of the Territory hereby annexed to the district of Kansas against any one of the United States, now, or that may hereafter be operative therein.
Winfield Courier, February 15, 1883.
The new district court bill gives Cowley three terms per year.
Note:
Parker’s U. S. Western District Court in Arkansas is maintained...
[PARKER RULES ON OKLAHOMA.]
Arkansas City Traveler, February 21, 1883.
OKLAHOMA.
We have received a copy of the decision of Judge I. C. Parker on the status of lands in the Indian Territory in the case of the United States vs. D. L. Payne, in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas, at the May term 1881. This is a civil suit to recover a penalty of one thousand dollars for being in the Indian Country contrary to law. Payne denies that he was in the Indian Country, but claims that he settled on land belonging to the Government and subject to settlement. The following is the opinion of the court in regard to the title, and why it is not subject to settlement.
The lands in controversy are a part of those which were by the treaty of the 14th February, 1833, made with the Creeks, set apart to them. By the treaty of the 7th of August, 1856, made between the United States and the Creeks, they conveyed these lands to the Seminoles, provided, however, that the same should not be sold or otherwise disposed of without the consent of both tribes legally given. The Seminoles, by the 3rd article of the treaty made between them and the United States, March 21st, 1866, provided as follows: “In compliance with a desire of the United States to locate other Indians and Freedmen thereon, the Seminoles cede and convey to the United States their entire domain, being the tract of land ceded to the Seminole Indians by the Creek Nation under the provisions of article 1st, treaty of the United States with the Creeks and Seminoles, made and conceded at Washington, D. C., August 7th, 1856.”
The Creeks, by the 7th article of the treaty of June, 1866, consented to this cession by the Seminoles.
To my mind this language used in the 3rd article of the Seminole treaty amounts to a conveyance of the title of land described to the United States. But the fact that the title of the land is in the United States does not necessarily make it that part of the public domain which is subject to settlement by citizens of the United States under the homestead and pre-emption laws, because these laws are explicit, and any lands which have been reserved by any treaty, law, or proclamation of the President, are no part of the public lands of the United States subject to these laws so long as such reservation continues, and when any part of the public lands have been once lawfully reserved, that reservation cannot be set aside except by a clear and explicit act of the lawful authority, showing thereby clearly a purpose to open to settlement, by the citizens, the land reserved.
It will be seen that Oklahoma is government land, and that no tribe of Indians have any interest in these lands, but that the government reserved them for the purpose of locating Indians and Freedmen thereon, and therefore the law has the same application to them that it does to Indian reserves. The court further says: “Now, in the estimation of many persons, it may be desirable to open this country to settlement. If so it must be done by the power that has a right under the constitution and laws of the country to do it.”
[COURT TERMS CHANGED.]
Arkansas City Traveler, February 28, 1883.
Terms of Court.
The following law changing the terms of the District courts in this judicial district was published and went into effect February 17, 1883.
AN ACT
Fixing terms of court in the Thirteenth Judicial district and repealing chapter 97 of the laws of 1881.
Be
it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas:
SECTION 1. The terms of the court for the Thirteenth Judicial district shall be held in the several counties therein as follows: In the county of Cowley on the first Tuesdays in January, May, and October of each year. In the county of Elk on the first Tuesdays in March, June, and November of each year. In the county of Chautauqua on the third Tuesdays in March, June, and November of each year. In the county of Sumner on the first Tuesdays in April, September, and December of each year.
SECTION 2. All bonds, recognizances, subpoenas, and other process now returnable to the term of court as now provided by law shall be returnable to the several terms of court as herein provided, the same as if this act had not been passed. Provided, That nothing herein shall interfere with the holding of the special term of court now ordered to be held in Sumner County by the Judge thereof.
SECTION 3. Chapter 97 of the laws of 1881 be and the same is hereby repealed as well as all other acts in conflict therewith.
SECTION 4. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its publication in the official State paper.
Approved February 16th, 1883.
I do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the original enrolled bill, now on file in my office.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed my official seal. Done at Topeka, Kansas, this 8th day of February, A. D. 1883.
JAMES SMITH, Secretary of State.
Winfield Courier, April 26, 1883.
The trial docket for the next term of the District Court, which meets here the first Tuesday in May, will be found on the fourth page.
[DISTRICT COURT.]
Winfield Courier, April 26, 1883.
TRIAL DOCKET.
Cowley County District Court, May Term, A. D. 1883.
FIRST DAY, TUESDAY, MAY 1ST, 1883—CRIMINAL.
No.
229. State v H. L. Wells.
305. State v. D. V. Cole.
309. State v. C. G. Holland.
310. State v. Frank Manny.
315. State v. C. G. Thompson.
316. State v. D. V. Cole.
318. State v. John Headrick.
320. State v. Riley Constant, et al.
332. State v. Hamlin Barlow.
337. State v. W. H. Colgate.
338. State v. Monroe Felton.
CIVIL DOCKET—2ND DAY.
1167. S. D. Pryor et al v M. L. Read et al.
1265. J. S. Mann v. J. D. Burt et al.
1405. Hackney & McDonald v Bolton & Creswell townships.
1472. Wheeler & Wilson Mfg. Co. V. Peter Thompson.
1477. C. C. Stevens v. City of Winfield.
1480. Harrison Harrod v. Moses Harrod.
1481. Chicago Lumber Co. V. Bolton & Creswell.
1482. Mary E. Hoyt v. C. G. Hoyt et al.
1486. N. S. Burnham v. M. O. Burnham.
1488. J. J. Clark v. S. J. Rice et al.
1494. Eliza Reihl v. Joseph Likowski.
1510. J. C. Fuller v. James Hardin, Co. Treas. [Should be Harden.]
1511. M. A. Millington v. James Harden, Co. Treas.
1512. H. G. Fuller v. James Harden, Co. Treas.
1513. S. E. Parker v. James Harden, Co. Treas.
1518. Aultman & Taylor Co. V. Geo. Hafer et al.
1539. W. P. Carpenter v. C. C. Pierce et al.
1546. J. S. Johnson v. J. M. Boyles.
CIVIL DOCKET—3RD DAY.
1565. M. A. Mann v. Adam Mann.
1500. The Assignment of Daniel Read.
1562. Jacob Burkey et al v. R. Hanlin.
1563. Jacob Burkey et al v. J. Hanlin.
1564. Jacob Burkey et al v. S. Hanlin.
1565. Jacob Burkey et al v. W. Metzger.
1666. Houghton & Speers v. James Harden, Co. Treas.
1579. L. C. Hester v. H. A. Pratt et al.
1592. M. L. Robinson v. C. C. Pierce et al.
196. Mathew Chambers v. Peter Myers.
1626. Isaac White v. James Giley.
1627. Mary Lowes v. Wm. Gould.
1642. E. S. Mount v. Henry Mount et al.
1645. Joseph Merrick v. A. C. Williams.
1648. R. C. Haywood v. C. M. Scott.
1653. G. P. Wagoner v. Frank Finch.
1657. J. B. Watkins v. Evan James.
1662. Calvin Stevens v. J. B. Corson.
[NOTE: SKIPPED THE REST....SHOWED SIX DAYS OF CIVIL DOCKET.]
E. S. BEDILION, Clerk.
Winfield Courier, May 10, 1883.
[At City Council Meeting.]
J. Wade McDonald, attorney for the Winfield Water Company, appeared and filed and presented to the mayor and councilmen a notification and request from said Water Company, in the words and figures following, to-wit:
Office of the Winfield Water Company, Winfield, Kansas, May 7th, 1883.
To
the Honorable Mayor and Council of the City of Winfield, Cowley County, Kansas:
GENTLEMEN: You are hereby notified and requested to proceed with all practicable dispatch to have condemned in the name of the City of Winfield, the right to perpetually divest from the Walnut River, at a point thereon northwest of the north end of Walton Street, of said city, all such quantity or quantities of water as may be necessary to enable the Win-field Water Company, its successors or assigns, to supply the said City of Winfield and the inhabitants thereof, with water, in pursuance with the provisions of ordinance numbered 167, of said city.
This notification and request is made in pursuance with and under and by virtue of the provisions of section 14 of said ordinance, numbered 167.
The Winfield Water Company by M. L. ROBINSON, President.
Attest: CHAS. F. BAHNTGE, Secretary.
And thereupon upon motion of Councilman McMullen it was ordered by the mayor and council that the city do forthwith, by Joseph O’Hare, Esq., city attorney, present, in the name of the city, a petition to the Honorable E. S. Torrance, judge of the district court of the County of Cowley, State of Kansas, requesting the appointment of three commissioners to lay off and condemn to the use of the city the right to forever divest from the Walnut River at a point thereon northwest of the present north end of Walton Street of said city, so much of the water of and from said stream as may or shall be or become necessary to forever supply from day to day and from year to year said city and the inhabitants thereof with an abundance of water for the extinguishment of fires and for domestic, sanitary, and other purposes as specified and provided for in and by ordinance numbered 167, of said city.
On motion, the Mayor, Councilmen Kretsinger, and Mr. J. P. Short were appointed a committee to examine the question of providing the city with fire hose and carts.
G. B. Shaw & Co., were granted the privilege of erecting a windmill in the street near their place of business, subject to removal on order of council.
The Mayor appointed Giles Prater city marshal and street commissioner for the ensuing year, and on motion the council confirmed the appointment; the mayor then appointed E. S. Bedilion city clerk for the ensuing year, and the council refused to confirm, there being two votes for confirmation and two against; the mayor then appointed D. A. Millington city engineer for the ensuing year, and the appointment was confirmed by the council.
The city attorney was instructed to present an ordinance to prevent children from being on the streets at night. On motion the council adjourned.
Attest: L. H. WEBB, City Clerk.
Arkansas City Traveler, Wednesday, May 16, 1883.
District Court is in session, Judge Torrance presiding.
Arkansas City Traveler, May 16, 1883.
The case of the State vs. Frank Manny for violation of the prohibitory liquor law was on trial the greater part of last week.
The jury disagreed, consequently the case will have to be tried over at this or some subsequent term.
Winfield Courier, May 17, 1883.
Judge Amos Walton called at this office Tuesday. He is in attendance at the District Court.
[DISTRICT COURT.]
Winfield Courier, May 17, 1883.
District Court Notes.
State vs. Colgate is on trial.
Divorce granted to William Rose and Mary C. Rose.
Divorce was granted in the suit, Patterson vs. Patterson.
A. P. Johnson was appointed guardian of Edward C. Hoyt.
Divorce was granted to Mercy M. Waters and Allen Waters.
State vs. Constant, Cronk prosecuting witness, verdict was rendered against defendant.
State vs. Frank Manny, the jury, after being out two days, disagreed, and were dismissed.
Henry E. Asp was appointed guardian of Henry Hockett, Addison Hockett, Cassius Hockett, Myrtle Hockett, and Minnie Hockett.
In the case of Mary S. Dyson vs. I. N. McCracken and Insan [?] McCracken, judgment was entered against defendant by default, in the sum of $210.42.
In the matter of the assignment of Ira McCommon, J. Wade McDonald was elected judge pro tem, to hear motion of Assignee to have certain articles of merchandise set off to him. Motion was sustained, and merchandise to the amount of $150, exempted.
Arkansas City Traveler, May 23, 1883.
The Colgate case is on trial in the District Court this week.
District Court referred to in the following long article...
[COMMENTS BY EDITORS WHO ATTENDED CONVENTION.]
Winfield Courier, May 24, 1883.
WHAT THE EDITORS SAY OF US.
Noble
Prentis in Atchison Champion.
LAS VEGAS, May 12, 1883.
The number of all sorts of anniversaries is working up along toward twenty. The session of the Kansas Editorial Association, just held at Winfield, was the eighteenth. The associa-tion, like many of its members, is getting old.
It was a good thing, that “constitutional amendment,” which cut the Association loose from the duty of meeting on Franklin’s birthday. Franklin was an obliging person, and would have arranged it differently, if he had been consulted, but as it happened he was born in January, which in Kansas is devoted, at Topeka, to cold and the Legislature. Consequently, the meetings of the Association in the old times were overshadowed and oppressed, so to speak, by both. Now the Association has all the months of the year for its little tour and vacation, and a score of fine towns in Kansas to choose from as places of meeting.
Winfield, the town selected this year, is the Southernmost point in the State ever chosen, and with the exception of a sort of adjourned meeting held once at Emporia, is the only meeting in that region where the water flows to the southward. And yet that southeastern quarter of Kansas contains a large number of handsome and able newspapers, the editors and publishers of which count among the old and staunch members of the K. P. A.
Not only on account of the geographical position, but on its own merits, Winfield proved a fortunate selection. The time, also, was propitious. There are a few brief weeks, varying a few days in different seasons in their beginning, but always somewhere between the first of May and the last of June, when Kansas looks her prettiest. Before, there is an undeveloped rawness, and after, a fading like that of the beauty of a woman. Whoever sees Kansas in just the right time knows the perfection of earth and air. It was one of these days that the meeting was held at Winfield.
But, to go back a little, the important part railroads play in our daily life was curiously illustrated in connection with the meeting. The members were to assemble at Winfield on Wednesday, the 9th, but during Tuesday night the wind, which came with lightning, thunder, and rain, blew some box cars from the side track on the main track, a few hundred yards from Carbondale station. A freight and stock train in the darkness smashed into these, and the result was a locomotive suddenly converted into old scrap iron; freight cars piled up on top of each other in splintered and shapeless confusion; and pigs, dead and alive, scattered, stiff or squealing, through the mass. The great work of the regular dispatching of trains was for hours broken up. It might be said that the shock of the collision at Carbondale was felt at Guaymas and Chihuahua; it is certain that the convenience of hundreds and thousands of people was affected. The excursionists bound for Winfield waited till the wreck could be passed or cleared; the special at Newton waited from noon until evening; the musicians who were to play at the ball at Winfield waited at the Wichita depot; and the people at Winfield waited for the editors and fiddlers, who should have arrived at noon, until far into the night; and the first day’s proceedings of the Association were telescoped into the second. Still a delay of twelve hours did not chill the warm hospitality of the Winfielders. They were on hand at the depot, and went through the last half of their delayed ball.
The Association went ahead with a quorum present on Thursday forenoon, bright and early. The meeting was held in Manning’s Hall, or opera house. Manning was not there, but the hall was viewed with interest, by his old friends, as an evidence of his enterprise and public spirit. It was found to be a big, roomy place; and the one hundred and fifty men, women, and children who made up the Association, made but a small showing. It was one of the balmiest and brightest of May days; the wide outer doors of the hall stood wide open all the time, and the proceedings were quite breezy and informal. The newspaper men practice the rule they have so often urged upon others, “pay in advance,” and the first pro-ceeding was the payment of the annual dues and the hire of the sleeping cars, and such a pile of silver and greenbacks accumulated on the Secretary’s table as seldom greets the editorial vision.
The Arion Quartette, four young fellows of Winfield, who have been singing together for their own amusement and that of the Winfield public, for years, started the ball with a song, written for the occasion, which was hailed with an encore, it was so full of fun and spirit; and it wound up with:
“For corn, wheat, and babies, and sheep and cattle,
“Poor, thirsty, droughty Kansas leads the world.
YOU BET.”
Among the Arions was Charley Black, and right here is a good place to speak of the Winfield editors and their kindness to the brethren and sisters. They did not go around with rosettes on them as big as buckwheat cakes, doing nothing in particular, but were always to be found wherever there was opportunity to do a visitor a favor. Mr. Millington, as patriarch of the Winfield editors, set the example of unwearied kindness. He made a caravansary of his own house, in which hospitable endeavor he was aided and abetted by his wife and daughters; and never rested until he had not only welcomed the coming but speeded the parting guest. Charley Black worked, preached, sung, and would, doubtless, have prayed with the visitors had he been called on. The visiting newspaper folks were also placed under infinite obligations to Mr. Ed. Greer, of the COURIER, for favors. Mr. Greer is a native Kansan, born in Doniphan County, his father being one of the earliest Superintendents of Public Instruction, serving, I believe, even before the admission of the State. To the list should also be added the name of Mr. Rembaugh, of the Telegram.
To return to the proceedings of the Association. After the money and the music, came the address of welcome. Mayor Troup being busy in the District Court, the ever useful Black read the remarks that Mr. Troup had prepared; and President Baker read a brief response, calling Charley, “Mr. Troup,” to keep up the illusion. The annual address was then delivered by the associate editor of the Champion, the theme being the “Facts and Fallacies of Jour-nalism.” Judge Adams of the Historical Society, followed with a paper on the newspaper history of Kansas.
At the brief afternoon meeting the committee on nominations reported. The renomina-tion, and of course, re-election of Father Baker as President, was hailed with hearty applause. Maj. Jack Downing was continued as the efficient secretary. The committee made a good choice in the selection of Senator A. P. Riddle, of the Girard Press, as the orator for the next year. Mr. Riddle is a vigorous thinker, and will exercise the gray matter of his brain on an address which will be devoted to the solid truth about the newspaper business as distinguished from flapdoodle.
The Winfield people developed a new thing in the “drive around town,” a courtesy generally extended by Kansas municipalities to visiting bodies. The usual custom is to gather a lot of omnibuses and barouches and various other wheeled structures, and go around in a solemn and dusty procession “to the place of beginning.” At Winfield the people sent their carriages (public and private) around to the designated rendezvous, and handed the ribbons to their friends to drive themselves. Accordingly on all the streets, coming and going, might be seen the note-book fillers, picking up ideas and facts about Winfield at their own sweet will. They drove down to the Park, an enclosure of natural forest, mostly composed of wide spreading elms stretching along the Walnut, and affording a long and shadowy drive, if not “for whispering lovers made,” at least admirably adapted to their use. Then the explorers took in the creamery, and talked with the intelligent Mr. Howe in regard to the past history, present resources, and future prospects of that institution. From these points the routes were various, but everywhere the tourists saw tasteful residences; many of them covered with the bright green clinging masses of Virginia creeper or ampelopsis; and such tasteful yards, and spreading trees, and brightening flowers as are unknown in the May of colder climes. The main streets were “taken in,” with the lofty and spacious business houses; and the drive usually ended at what it is true was only a mill, a grist mill, if you please, but a mill five stories high, and with walls as smooth and white and fair as those we imagine that palaces have. We suppose the Winfielders pride themselves on the wealth, the business facilities, etc., of their town, but they trample the real glory of Winfield under their feet every day. It is their sidewalks. Certainly there never was a town so paved. There is everywhere accessible a sort of white stone, which can be split out in any thickness required. The most easy and accommodating of rocks, it seemed very light; at least two horses can haul what seems a great quantity of it. And on this royal material the people of Winfield walk about, calm and serene in the muddiest of weather. It is laid down not only on the main street but on all the streets, and miles more are being laid down. To dream that you live in marble halls is nothing to walking out in wakefulness and reality on the material of which marble halls are constructed.
At night the bright and fair of Winfield met the excursionists at the Opera House, the Arions sang again; good byes were said; and then the waiting train was filled, and as the party sped away under the narrow new moon and the twinkling stars for New Mexico, the booming guns of the Winfield battery thundered a brave good bye.
[DISTRICT COURT.]
Winfield Courier, May 24, 1883.
Court Items.
Peter Yount, who is one of the jurors in the Colgate case, has been too ill to sit since last Friday. The defendant by his attorneys offered to waive his right to twelve jurors and go on with the trial with the remaining eleven. The court held that the defendant could not waive that right, and continued the case until next Monday.
In the case of State vs. Constant, the motion for new trial was argued and denied.
The case of Mrs. Parker to enjoin the sale of lots in Winfield to enforce the sidewalk tax, was decided for the plaintiff.
[DISTRICT COURT HONORS SHENNEMAN.]
Winfield Courier, June 7, 1883.
DISTRICT COURT.
Honors to Shenneman.
WHEREAS, A. T. Shenneman, Esq., late sheriff of Cowley County, Kansas, and as such an officer of this court, died in this county on the 25 day of January, A. D. 1883, being stricken down by the hand of an outlaw, while in the act of arresting him, and
WHEREAS, The said A. T. Shenneman fell at his post while in the noble and faithful discharge of his duty as an officer of this court,
Now therefore, be it resolved by the court and all the members of the bar thereof, that in the death of the said A. T. Shenneman we have suffered the loss of an honorable, faithful, and efficient officer of this court, and one whom we have ever found faithful to his trust, whether as an officer or as a private citizen; and
Be it further resolved, That the clerk of this court be instructed to spread these resolutions upon the journal of this court, and furnish a copy thereof to the widow of said A. T. Shenneman under the seal of the court.
M. G. TROUP, J. F. McMULLEN, W. A. TIPTON, Committee.
Attest: E. S. BEDILION, Clerk. May 28, 1883. [SEAL.]
[DISTRICT COURT.]
Arkansas City Traveler, July 18, 1883.
Recap: Case in District Court of Cowley County, Kansas. Charles C. Butterfield, plaintiff, vs. David Jay, Cindarilla Jay, and W. Marsh Kasson, Defendants. A. J. Pyburn, attorney for plaintiff.
[CORRESPONDENTS.]
Winfield Courier, August 2, 1883.
Sedan News.
Verily, verily, sayeth our best girl, the time hath arrived when ice cream is only 5 cents a dish. Therefore, let us rejoice while we may, and the 5 cents goeth straightway.
We are pleased, and at the same time a little jealous, to hear so many compliments showered upon the Courier Band. A certain young lady friend of ours to whom I have had occasion to refer in previous letters, and who is well known to the COURIER folks, says that the Courier Band isn’t “near there” with ours, and I have a great deal of faith in her state-ments, especially when she asserts that I am the greenest, most awkward young man in town.
The all-absorbing sensation of the day in our county is the conflict of bourbonism on the one hand and civilization on the other. At least four saloons have been in full blast in our city for nearly a year under the cloak of a druggist’s permit, and whiskey has flowed free for adults and minors alike, while every back street is barricaded with beer bottles. Previous to this, no systematic, whole-souled effort has been made to abate this iniquity. It is true that Ben Henderson convicted a druggist of Peru, but the County Attorney, M. B. Light, to whom he confided his plans, reduced them to paper, gave them to the bourbon attorneys, and by the power of the County Attorney, defeated the verdict of guilty in the district court. Since then, Mr. Lemon has redeemed the office of county attorney by entering a righteous prosecution against four drug stores in Sedan, and at last the news comes that Mr. Lemon has resigned and Ben Henderson is appointed in his place. Of course, the usual howl goes up, but if the aforesaid Ben Henderson don’t convince the beer guzzling, law-breaking outfit in this place that there is still a “God in Israel,” in less than two months, than I am no shadow of a prophet. God prosper the COURIER for the grand, bold, uncompromising stand to which it is devoted in this all-important fight. So long as civilization stands up and rewards its devotees for their fearless labors, your inheritance is sure. JASPER.
Arkansas City Traveler, August 22, 1883.
The case of R. W. Wood, on a charge of horse stealing, came up last Monday before U. S. Commissioner Bonsall, and resulted in the defendant being bound over to the next term of the district court at Wichita in the sum of $250. Bail was given.
Not sure this applies at all to district court in Cowley County unless there is a connection with “Boyd.”
Arkansas City Traveler, August 22, 1883.
The Texas fever cases at Medicine Lodge resulted in the conviction of Boyd. A fine of $300 and 30 days imprisonment was assessed by the justice. Boyd took an appeal to the district court and the final decision in the case will not be reached before November next.
Not sure this would apply to Cowley County unless Sedan was connected with the Cowley County District Court in some way at that time.
Winfield Courier, August 30, 1883.
Sedan Jottings.
We understand that Hoy has put a new ticket-holder in his milk wagon, and Hugh Walker was crying when he told me about it. Hugh says that Hoy must let up on this sort of thing or there will be at least one case of manslaughter in the next term of the District Court. He says he don’t feel like singing Sums and rejoicing any more.
Winfield Courier, September 20, 1883.
Last Thursday night Grant Dover and Ulysses Asbury, of Dexter, aged respectfully fifteen and seventeen years, stole a horse from W. A. Allison of that place and started south-west toward the Territory. At Arkansas City they traded the horse off and were proceeding to move on when the constable of Dexter stopped them on this first step in a criminal career and brought them to Winfield. They had their preliminary examination before Justice Soward and were bound over in the sum of three hundred dollars to appear at the next term of the district court. The necessary bond being given, they returned home with their parents. It is lucky that no success attended these boys on their first misdemeanor of this kind. They will likely get a short term in the “pen”—enough to straighten them out and fix a determination in their minds that an honest, industrious life is the only safe road to success and honor.
Arkansas City Traveler, September 26, 1883.
District court commences next Tuesday.
[DISTRICT COURT DOCKET.]
Arkansas City Traveler, September 26, 1883.
Trial Docket for the October Term, 1883.
CRIMINAL DOCKET - FIRST DAY.
State vs. Frank Manny.
State vs. Jacob Case.
State vs. Charles A. Cooper et al.
State vs. N. B. Lagle.
State vs. Grant Dover et al.
SECOND DAY - CIVIL DOCKET.
1. John S. Mann vs. J. D. Burt et al.
2. Hackney & McDonald vs. Bolton and Creswell Townships.
3. Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. Vs. Peter Thompson et al.
4. Harrison Harrod vs. Moses Harrod.
5. Chicago Lumber Co. vs. Bolton and Creswell Townships.
6. N. S. Burnham vs. M. O. Burnham.
7. J. J. Clark vs. S. J. Rice et al.
8. Eliza Reihl vs. Joseph Likowski.
9. John S. Johnson vs. J. M. Boyles.
10. M. S. Mann vs. Adam Mann.
11. In the matter of Assignment of I. L. McCommon.
12. Houghton & Speers vs. James Harden, County Treasurer.
13. L. C. Harter vs. Harriet A. Pratt et al.
14. M. L. Robinson vs. C. C. Pierce et al.
15. Matthew Chambers vs. Peter Myers.
16. Isaac White vs. James Gilkey.
17. Mary Lowes vs. William Gould et al.
18. Joseph Merrick vs. A. C. Williams et al.
Lack of space prevents us giving the docket in full this week, but it will appear in next week’s issue unabridged. The above constitutes but the first two days’ proceedings.
[PETIT JURORS.]
Arkansas City Traveler, September 26, 1883.
The following persons have been drawn to serve as petit jurors at the October term of the district court: D. N. Dressler, Tisdale Township; B. E. Murphy, Walnut; H. H. Causey, R. R. Phelps, Silver Creek; David Davey, Maple; Thomas Tice, J. R. Cottingham, Richland;
W. S. Williamson, Liberty; Thos. S. Jackson, Vernon; W. S. Ridenour, Creswell; Rudolph Wellman, Vernon; W. H. Butler, Fairview.
[DISTRICT COURT DOCKET.]
Winfield Courier, September 27, 1883.
Trial Docket, October Term, 1883.
Cowley County District Court, to be held on and from October 21.
CRIMINAL DOCKET—FIRST DAY.
State v. Frank Manny.
State v. Jacob Case.
State v. Charles A. Cooper et al.
State v. John Askens.
State v. N. B. Lagle.
State v. Grant Dover et al.
[SKIPPED THE REST SHOWING COURT TO BE IN SESSION FOR SIX DAYS.
CIVIL DOCKET STARTED SECOND DAY...89 CASES LISTED.]
[DISTRICT COURT.]
Arkansas City Traveler, October 3, 1883.
Trial Docket for the October Term, 1883.
Cowley County District Court, to be held on and from October 2.
CRIMINAL DOCKET—FIRST DAY.
State vs. Frank Manny.
State vs. Jacob Case.
State vs. Charles A. Cooper et al.
State vs. John Askens.
State vs. N. B. Lagle.
State vs. Grant Dover et al.
CIVIL DOCKET—SECOND DAY.
John B. Mann vs. J. D. Burt et al.
Hackney & McDonald vs. Bolton and Creswell Townships.
Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. vs. Peter Thompson et al.
Harrison Harrod vs. Moses Harrod.
Chicago Lumber Co. vs. Bolton and Creswell Townships.
N. S. Burnham vs. M. O. Burnham.
J. J. Clark vs. J. Rice et al.
Ellen Reihl vs. Joseph Likowski.
John S. Johnson vs. J. M. Boyles.
M. S. Mann vs. Adam Mann.
In the matter of assignment of I. L. McCommon.
Houghton & Speers vs. James Harden, county treasurer.
L. C. Harter vs. Harriett A. Pratt et al.
M. L. Robinson vs. C. C. Pierce et al.
Matthew Chambers vs. Peter Myers.
Isaac White vs. James Gilkey.
Mary Lowe vs. William Gould et al.
Joseph Merric vs. A. C. Williams et al.
CIVIL DOCKET—THIRD DAY.
R. C. Haywood vs. C. M. Scott.
G. P. Wagoner vs. Frank W. Finch.
A. C. Cronk et al vs. W. R. Constant.
Joseph Likowski vs. J. M. Alexander.
Samuel Alexander vs. H. N. Chancy et al.
W. H. C. Potter vs. O. P. Barr et al.
Mrs. J. J. Nodine vs. J. E. Conklin.
John McIlrath vs. M. S. Sturgill et al.
Bard & Harris vs. J. B. Corson.
James Hughes vs. James Burden, county treasurer.
M. G. Troup vs. A. A. Davis et al.
In the matter of petition of James Hughes.
S. R. Mercer vs. A. B. Henthorn.
W. D. Larimore vs. R. J. Dyal et al.
Edgar Smith vs. T. A. Wilkinson, et al.
William L. Hands vs. Calvin Ferguson.
John D. Pryor vs. Malinda Clay et al.
A. D. Wear vs. S. E. Shermerhorn et al.
CIVIL DOCKET—FOURTH DAY.
Timothy B. Sweet vs. J. E. Conklin.
Bliss & Wood vs. William H. Colgate.
W. S. Mendenhall vs. Barbara L. Sheel.
Joseph O’Hare vs. Travelers’ Insurance Co.
J. H. Watkins vs. George W. Ballou et al.
J. E. Mansfield vs. H. P. Mansfield et al.
M. Brettun et al vs. M. J. McGree et al.
R. R. Conklin vs. M. H. Winthrow et al.
R. R. Conklin vs. N. C. Driggs et al.
David Hood vs. Jacob W. Nesley et al.
R. R. Conklin vs. Wm. B. Winthrow et al.
Mahala T. Covert vs. Enoch G. Willett et al.
Nancy J. Sicks vs. John N. Sicks.
C. M. Scott vs. Catharine Burger.
Daniel Grass vs. P. H. and J. M. Cole.
Irene Bailey vs. James M. Bailey.
Bernhard Geiser vs. Antonia Daleschall et al.
Warder, Bushnell & Glessner vs. H. E. Noble.
CIVIL DOCKET—FIFTH DAY.
J. B. Johnson et al vs. C. C. Harris.
G. W. Slaughter vs. P. S. Burress et al.
Charlotte K. Robinson vs. Samuel Clemm.
Chicago Lumber Co. vs. Emma Chenoweth et al.
Joel O. Mack vs. L. C. Harter et al.
Evaline White vs. John White.
First Presbyterian Church vs. M. J. Manning.
Marie P. Peirson vs. D. W. C. Bellville.
Ira Stout vs. Allen Whipple.
Henry Hansen vs. Joseph Davis.
C. C. Butterfield vs. David Jay et al.
A. H. Green vs. William H. Dunn.
Olive E. Dabney vs. P. K. Dabney.
Melvina Stocking vs. Horace Sterling.
Della Lee vs. Cy Wright.
Emily V. Lane vs. E. J. Lane.
J. J. Callison vs. Lucy J. Callison.
Elizabeth McQuain vs. N. A. Baldwin et al.
CIVIL DOCKET—SIXTH DAY.
Wm. V. Christy vs. Amanda Christy.
Hannah Kimmel vs. T. J. Kimmel.
G. I. Johnson vs. H. H. Siverd.
J. P. Johnson vs. H. H. Siverd.
Ezra Milks vs. Jane Milks.
Mollie Burke vs. William Burke.
Susan A. Thomas vs. John W. Thomas.
Harrison Harrod vs. David C. Beach.
J. L. Byers vs. H. Green et al.
J. M. Hooker vs. R. R. Phelps.
F. A. Drummond vs. A. A. Drummond.
Hartford Life Ins. Co. vs. Frank M. Woodruff et al.
Hartford Life Ins. Co. vs. Jacob Crites et al.
R. R. Conklin vs. E. W. Hanning et al.
R. R. Conklin vs. James M. Baker et al.
R. R. Conklin vs. George W. Denton et al.
S. M. Jarvis vs. C. C. Rockwell.
Winfield Courier, October 4, 1883.
The District Court opened Tuesday morning last. The case of the State vs. Frank Manny was continued, and the State vs. Ed. B. Lagle, charged with stealing a horse in this county on July 12th from a Mr. Richards, was taken up and is still in progress. An order was issued Tuesday for the drawing of fifteen additional jurymen.
[DISTRICT COURT.]
Winfield Courier, October 11, 1883.
DISTRICT COURT.
Court has been in session for the two weeks past. Most of the time has been occupied with the criminal docket.
The following cases were disposed of.
State vs. Frank Manny, continued with $500 bail.
State vs. Jacob Case, defendant plead guilty to assault and battery, and was sentenced to one week in county jail and to pay cost of prosecution.
State vs. Cooper and Carder, for horse stealing, trial by jury and both convicted. No sentence yet pronounced.
State vs. John Askens, jury found a verdict of guilty of grand larceny.
State vs. Mike Renick, charged with assault with intent to kill, now on trial.
The following civil cases were disposed of.
N. S. Burnham vs. Minerva O. Burnham, dismissed for want of prosecution at plaintiffs cost.
Missouri A. Mann vs. Adam Mann, dismissed.
Foreclosures were taken as follows:
By R. R. Conklin against Nelson C. Briggs.
Morris H. Withrow and William R. Withrow.
By M. T. Covert against Enoch G. Willett.
By C. C. Butterfield against David Jay.
Winfield Courier, October 18, 1883.
District Court is still in session, and engaged on civil cases, which are of little note to the general public. A large number of small cases have been adjusted.
[SHERIFF GARY.]
Winfield Courier, November 1, 1883.
Like a leading general, Mr. Gary’s headquarters are in the “field.” The district court would like to have some citizen locate the sheriff permanently: at least during terms of court.
Winfield Courier, November 1, 1883.
Sheriff Gary passed through this city Monday en route from Topeka to Arkansas City. He left the county last Friday, since which time the district court, in session here, continued to run itself.
Winfield Courier, November 1, 1883.
The sheriff fight is being reduced to a one-sided affair. Scores of democrats have an-nounced their intention of voting against Gary, hoping to thereby rid the party of an incompetent parasite. The query now is: Where will Gary go after his defeat?
[DISTRICT COURT.]
Winfield Courier, November 22, 1883.
List of Jurors in attendance at the October Term of the District Court.
Regular Jury.
D. N. Dressler, $50.70, H. H. Causey, $31.80, David Davy, $6.00, Thomas Tice, $58.20, J. R. Cottingham, $41.00, W. S. Williamson, $55.00, Rudolph Wellman, $17.60, W. H. Butler, $50.00.
Special Venire.
E. R. Chapin, $20.80, J. H. Guinn, $46.10, Levi Weimer, $40.00, Wm. May, $25.40, S. E. Maxwell, $40.40, J.. R. Sumpter, $17.60, W. C. Guyer, $17.00, Robert Richie, $29.20, L. J. Davidson, $11.60, A. F. Sitton, $49.60.
Talesmen. [Most paid $2.00 or $4.00...Not listing amounts.]
A. V. Polk, H. Brotherton, C. Trump, Wm. McCullock, H. B. Kizer, Walter Denning, Willis Cowen, F. J. Sydall, L. Moore, J. H. John, T. J. Harris, D. S. Huntington, Henry Noble, Frank Smith, T. L. Bartlow, John Mark, H. R. Branson, Geo. B. Green, S. P. Strong, G. W. Anderson, N. W. Dressie, Lafayette Wise, H. Baxter, S. S. Holloway, J. B. Morgan, J. H. Land, R. A. McKenna, J. H. Morgan, J. W. Hackleman, David Ferguson, Wm. Cohagan, B. W. Jenkins, M. Croco, J. L. M. Strange, M. V. Sitton, L. K. Bonewell, G. R. Stevens, L. T. Morgan, Israel Weakly [?Weakley], G. W. Anderson, M. F. Scott, Levi Wells, W. W. Brown, George Arnold, W. L. Burton, P. A. Sorey, Abrum Coffman, W. F. Jones, O. W. Keihiholtz, C. H. Wooden, F. H. Burton, Ephraim Sears, Samuel Eslinger, J. H. Hill, S. L. Smith, E. Custar, Jacob Miller, W. J. Bonnewell, J. F. Miller, A. V. Corbin, L. C. Harter, Arthur Orr, E. F. Sears, J. W. Hackleman, J. A. Cooper, D. A. Dale, W. I. Shotwell, James Kirk, W. J. Shrubshall, D. S. Fike, J. F. Miller, C. Castanian, Lewis Conrad, J. N. Harter, N. L. Edwards, Geo. Ordway, D. W. Frew, W. J. Bonnewell, Wm. Moore, M. J. Land, Lafayette Wise, N. W. Dressie, Jos. Singer, R. A. McKenna, J. H. Morgan, J. W. Hackleman, J. H. Land, W. N. Dressie, John Foregay, H. C. Reynolds, A. Hughes, T. E. Jones, Wm. Warren, L. C. Harter, Silick Cure, C. H. Wooden, C. A. Roberts, C. C. Pierce, Wm. B. Norman, W. L. Holmes, Lewis Conrad, E. C. Seward, Clark Bryant, W. H. Webster, D. Swift.
Total amount allowed for Jurors and Talesmen for the October 1883 term of the District Court of Cowley County: $1,162.00. J. S. HUNT, COUNTY CLERK.
Winfield Courier, December 6, 1883.
The following is the list of jurors drawn for the January 1884 term of district court.
Henry Chitwood, Rock; John M. Smiley, D. G. Lewis, and G. L. Kirkpatrick, Creswell; R. Combs, Vernon; A. T. Cooper, Bolton; J. W. Elkins, Silver Creek; Adam Walck, Maple; J. A. Sanborn, Windsor; Andrew Harvey, Liberty; James Utt, Cedar; Henry Glaves, Harvey.
Refers to District Court at Sedan, Chautauqua County...
Winfield Courier, December 13, 1883.
OTTER JOTTINGS.
The District Court at Sedan failed to empty the jail. Harp was sent to Leavenworth for ten years. Witt was found guilty of murder in the first degree. Bacon was not tried because of some technicalities in the information.
With two more murders in Chautauqua County Sunday before last, she still carries the belt. If the stern hand of the law does not do something soon to check such violence, there certainly will be something done by the “good citizens.” OTTERITE.
Winfield Courier, December 27, 1883.
DISTRICT COURT TRIAL DOCKET, JANUARY TERM, 1844.
CRIMINAL DOCKET.
FIRST DAY.
1. State of Kansas vs. Frank Manny.
2. State vs. Grant Dover.
3. State vs. John Kearns.
SKIPPED THE CIVIL DOCKET....82 CASES TO BE HEARD.
COURT TO BE HELD FOR SIX DAYS ACCORDING TO PAPER.
Winfield Courier, January 3, 1884.
Dr. Fleming was arrested Wednesday morning charged with violation of the prohibitory law. He is arrested on ten counts. The case comes before the District Court at its present session.
Winfield Courier, January 3, 1884.
District Court.
Court convened Monday. On Tuesday the judge set the cases on the docket and discharged the jury until next Monday. The docket will probably be entirely cleared this term, for the first time in many years.
[CATTLE IN TERRITORY: UNDER U. S. DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.]
Arkansas City Traveler, January 9, 1884.
Frank
Goodin, of Okmulgee, Creek Nation, who was arrested and taken before the U. S.
Commissioner at Arkansas City on the charge of stealing a steer belonging to E.
M. Hewins, was discharged on the ground that the place where the alleged theft
occurred was under the jurisdiction of the U. S. District court for the western
district of Arkansas. The steer, it seems, had strayed into the Creek country
and was picked up and sold, Mr. Goodin being the purchaser. The moral of this
is, that stockmen on the Cherokee strip must not let their cattle wander upon
the sacred soil of the Muskogee. Caldwell Journal.
Do
not think they are referring to Cowley County District Court...
Winfield Courier, January 17, 1884.
Last Tuesday Mrs. Howard Finley, wife of engineer Finley, was appointed administratrix of the estate and guardian of the children and filed a suit in the District Court against the Southern Kansas railroad for five thousand dollars damages. The road through its attorney, Senator Hackney, immediately confessed judgment and paid the amount. The whole business did not occupy more than two hours.
Winfield Courier, January 17, 1884.
Judge Hiram Stevens of Wyandotte County was in attendance on the district court Wednesday; also Tom George of Wellington. Judge Brush of Elk County, Col. Grass, of Independence, Judge Campbell, of Carthage, and W. J. Patterson of Lawrence.
[INTER-STATE COMMERCE.]
Winfield Courier, January 24, 1884.
INTER-STATE COMMERCE.
Wilson of Iowa introduced in the senate a bill to establish a board of inter-state commerce. It provides for a board of commissioners, to be appointed by the president as a bureau of the department of the Interior, the commissioners to be five in number, with terms of two, four, six, eight, and ten years, respectively, the successor of each to hold office for ten years, one of such commissioners to be experienced in law, one in civil engineering, one in the management of railways, one in agricultural industry, one in manufacturing industry, the salary of each commissioner to be $7,000. The duties of the board will be the considera-tion and investigation of all questions relating to commerce between states or between the United States and foreign countries, especially matters of transportation, and as far as necessary establish a just system of regulations for the government of the same. It is to make a report to congress not later than the first of December, together with a draft of a bill embodying a just comprehension of a code of regulations of transportations among the states, which shall embrace a provision fixing maximum rates, and the preservation of free competi-tion within the limits fixed for the prohibition of discriminations of every kind whatsoever, and for applying the same principles and to charge all persons and corporations alike for the preservation and enforcement of the rights of shippers and elect lines and parts of lines over which shipments shall pass. Whenever in the judgment of the board it shall appear that a transportation company has violated provisions of the law, it shall give the company notice in writing, and if after such notice, the violation shall continue, it shall forthwith present the facts to the attorney general, who shall institute proceedings against the company, as authorized by law. The bill prohibits discrimination by the transportation companies against any shipper, and provides a penalty of not less than $1,000 for each offense, to be recovered by action, on information of any party having knowledge of the facts, which action shall be brought before the United States court, or any district court, one-half of the penalty recovered to go to the party damaged by the alleged violation of the law.
Winfield Courier, January 24, 1884.
Mr. C. W. Gregory has appealed from the damages of $125 allowed him for the W. M. Corn county road and will try the district court on the matter.
Winfield Courier, January 31, 1884.
The Fleming Case.
The trial of Dr. J. Fleming, which occupied all of last week in the District Court, resulted in conviction on three counts after the jury had been out about twenty hours. The indictment was drawn on ten counts. The first ballot of the jury stood eleven for conviction in all counts and one for acquittal in all but three. This one man then hung the other eleven for twenty hours and, under our faulty jury system, compelled them to come to his views in order that justice might be at least partially meted out to him. It seems to us that three-fourths of a jury ought to govern. The Doctor’s impression that he could run a grog shop under a physician’s cloak has had a most disastrous and unhappy awakening. There are “physicians” of about the same stripe at Burden, New Salem, and Udall, who had better profit by his experience, if rumors we catch floating about are true. Violating the Constitution and Laws has been found to be a losing game, all over the State.
Winfield Courier, February 7, 1884.
THE WATER WORKS DECISION.
Following is the full text of the decision of Judge Torrance in the water works case, in which Bliss & Wood are plaintiffs, and the Winfield Water Company is defendant.
STATEMENT OF CASE.
The decision of this case arises upon a general demurrer interposed by the plaintiffs to the defendant’s answer. The petition in the case, in substance, alleges that the plaintiffs are owners of a mill pond on the Walnut River, in this county, and of lands adjacent thereto, upon which they have constructed a valuable flouring and grist mill, which they are operating by means of the water power furnished by said mill pond; that the defendant is a private corporation created under the laws of this State, and that it has constructed and is operating a system of water works in the city of Winfield, for the purpose of supplying said city with water, and for that purpose is diverting large quantities of water from the plaintiffs’ said mill pond. The petition prays for a perpetual injunction. By way of defense to the cause of action stated in plaintiffs’ petition, the defendant in its answer, alleges that it is a private corporation, duly incorporated under the laws of this State, for the purpose of constructing and maintaining, adjacent to and within the city of Winfield, a system of water works for the purpose of supplying said city with water; that said city of Winfield is a city of the second class, duly incorporated as such under the laws of this State; that the Mayor and Councilmen of said city duly passed an ordinance granting to Frank Barclay, J. L. Horning, J. Wade McDonald, W. C. Robinson, J. B. Lynn, W. P. Hackney, and M. L. Robinson, and their assigns, the privilege of constructing, operating, and maintaining, for the period of ninety-nine years, a system of water works within the corporate limits of said city, for the purpose of supplying its inhabitants with water, and for the better protection of said city against disaster from fires. This ordinance invests the grantees named therein with full power, for the period of ninety-nine years, to lay pipes in the streets, alleys, and other public places within said city, and to extend such pipes, and to erect hydrants, fountains, conduits, or such other useful and ornamental structures as may be necessary for the successful operation of such works. The ordinance further provides that at the expiration of certain specified periods, after the completion of the works, the city shall have the right to purchase the works from the grantees named in the ordinance, or their assigns, upon terms and conditions expressed in the ordinance. The ordinance in terms provides that it shall constitute a contract between the city and the grantees named therein, and their assigns, and shall be binding on all parties upon the acceptance of its provisions by the grantees named therein, or their assigns. In section 14 of the ordinance, the city expressly agrees as a part of the franchise and contract embraced in the ordinance, that it will, upon the request in writing of the grantees named therein, or their assigns, proceed without delay to exercise its right of eminent domain in the condemnation of any lots, parcels, or pieces of ground, or of water or any water privilege, that may be necessary to the proper and convenient construction and maintenance of the system of water works provided for in the ordinance, provided the said grantees, or their assigns, shall pay all costs and expenses incident to such condemnation proceedings, including the cost of all property so condemned. This section also provides that the right to the free and exclusive use and enjoyment of all property so condemned shall vest and remain in said grantees, and their assigns, so long as the franchise and contract provided for in the ordinance shall remain in force and effect. The answer of the defendant further alleges that, after the passage, and due publication of said ordinance, the grantees therein named duly assigned to the defendant corporation all the right, title, and interest granted to and vested in them, under the provisions of said ordinance; that afterwards the defendant notified said city of the fact of such assignment, and that as such assignee it accepted the franchise and contract granted by and embodied in said ordinance, and that the city of Winfield thereupon assented to such assignment, and accepted the defendant in the place and stead of the original grantees named in the ordinance; that afterwards, and in pursuance of section 14 of said ordinance, the City Council of said city proceeded to condemn, and did condemn in its own name, the right to forever divert from the said mill pond of the plaintiffs, sufficient quantities of water to operate and maintain a system of water works, and to supply the inhabitants of the city of Winfield with water therefrom. These condemnation proceedings were had under the provisions of an act of the Legislature of the State entitled, “An act authorizing cities to construct water works,” approved February 27th, 1872, and a subsequent act of the Legislature, amendatory thereof, approved March 8, 1883, and the proceedings seem upon their face to be regular and valid. The answer further alleges that the defendant corporation afterwards constructed the system of water works provided for in said ordinance, and that it is now operating the same, and is diverting from the plaintiffs’ mill pond, by virtue of such condemnation proceedings, only such quantities of water as are necessary for the operation of its works in the supplying of the city of Winfield with water.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
The power of eminent domain, or the right of the public to appropriate private property to public uses, is one of the attributes of political sovereignty. This power remains dormant, and is unavailable even to the State itself, until legislative action is had, pointing out the occasions, the modes, and conditions under which it may be exercised. The Legislature may at once by direct legislative enactment, appropriate property; or it may delegate such authority to some public or private agency to be exercised by it upon the occasions, and in the mode and under the conditions specified in the act conferring the right. But no person nor corporation, either public or private, however pressing may be the public necessity therefor, is competent to employ the power of eminent domain unless such power has been expressly vested in said person or corporation by an act of the Legislature; and then only in the mode and under the conditions and for the uses expressed in the act. This legislative delegation of the right of eminent domain partakes of the nature of a personal appointment or trust, and the authority thus conferred cannot be delegated to another, or in any manner transferred or assigned, by the person or corporation clothed with the power by the act of the legislature. It seems to me that the principles of law thus far stated are clearly supported by the text writers upon the subject, and by the adjudged cases. The question now arises whether a city of the second class, empowered to exercise this right by the act of the legislature above referred to, for the purpose of supplying its inhabitants with water, has the power to contract with a private corporation, organized under the laws of this state for the purpose of supplying such city with water, to condemn the necessary lands and water privileges to enable such private corporation to construct and operate its waterworks, and in pursuance of such contract lawfully condemn the lands or water privileges of third persons for the benefit of such private corporation. It seems to me that this is a correct statement of the question of law raised by the demurrer to the defendant’s answer. It is true the city of Winfield may in one sense be benefitted by the use of the water proposed to be furnished by the defendant corporation. It is also true that when a private corporation is duly empowered by the legislature to take private property for the construction of works of public utility, the fact that it has a pecuniary interest in the construction of such works does not preclude it from being regarded as a proper agency in respect to the public good which is sought to be promoted. Under our statutes, however, a private water corporation has no authority delegated to it by the legislature to exercise the right of eminent domain. So it seems to me that the contract of the city of Winfield to secure the necessary condemnation proceedings was primarily, and in the just sense of the term, for the benefit of the defendant corporation. The ordinance itself provides that the exclusive use and enjoyment of the property condemned by the city shall vest and remain in the grantees therein named, and their assigns. The act of our legislature under which the condemnation proceedings were had in this case is entitled, “An act authorizing cities to construct waterworks.” This act grants to cities of the second class full power and authority, on behalf of such cities, to contract for and procure the construction of waterworks for the purpose of supplying the inhabitants of such cities with water for domestic use, the extinguishment of fires, and for manufacturing and other purposes. It provides that the city council shall have power and authority to condemn and appropriate, in the name and for the use of the city, any such lands or water privileges, located in or out of the corporate limits thereof, as may be necessary for the construction and operation of such waterworks. It further provides that when the council shall determine to condemn any land or water privilege for the purpose aforesaid, it shall cause a petition to be presented in the name of the city to the judge of the district court of the county in which said city is situated, setting forth the necessity of the appropriation of lands or water privileges for the erection and operation of waterworks, and requesting the appointment of three commission-ers to lay off and condemn such lands or water privileges as may be necessary for such purpose, and to make an appraisement and assessment of damages. The act provides that the subsequent proceedings shall be governed by the provisions of the statute relative to the condemnation of lands by railroad corporations (with but one exception), so far as the same are applicable. It also provides that upon the completion of the condemnation proceedings the city shall be vested with the right to perpetually use the property condemned for the purpose of such water works. The act also empowers the council to issue the bonds of the city to defray the cost of such water works, after the question of their issue has been determined in the affirmative by a majority of the electors of such city. The act further empowers and makes it the duty of the council to fix the rate of water rents to be paid by consumers, and to ordain such rules and regulations, with appropriate penalties for the violation of the same, as the council may deem proper for the regulation and protection of such water works, and, lastly, the act authorizes the council to appoint such engineers and other officers to superintend and operate such water works, both during and after the construction of the same, as may be necessary, and to do all acts and things for the erection, operation, alteration, and repair of such water works as may from time to time, in the judgment of the council, be necessary. It is evident, both from the title and body of this act, that it was the intention of the legislature to empower cities of the second class to construct water works for their own benefit and at their own expense, and to have the exclusive control and management of the same. And to this end the act authorizes the city council to exercise the right of eminent domain in the condemnation and appropriation of such lands and water privileges as may be necessary for that purpose, in the name and for the perpetual use of the city in the maintenance and operation of such water works. The only warrant which the city has is to be found in this act; and the only authority conferred by the act is the appropriation of property for the benefit of the city alone. When the property of an individual is sought to be divested against his will by authority of law, courts should not permit the authority conferred to be extended by intendment beyond the fair import of the language used, and should require a strict compliance with the provisions of the law by which the authority is delegated. If the legislature had intended that the power of eminent domain should be invoked in aid of water works to be constructed by private water corporations, it would have delegated the right to exercise such power to such corporations themselves, or to some other agency empowered to act on their behalf. The fact that the legislature has omitted to do so is satisfactory evidence to my mind that it did not intend to delegate the power in such cases. I have had but little time to examine the law bearing upon the point involved in this demurrer, and I would be very loth to thus hastily decide this case if I thought there was any probability that my decision would finally determine the rights of the parties. I thought it proper however, as the matter to be determined was of some general interest to the citizens of this city, to reduce the reasons for my decision to writing. In my present view of the law I am of the opinion the demurrer should be sustained, and it is so ordered.
E. S. TORRANCE, Judge.
[NOTICES.]
Winfield Courier, February 7, 1884.
HUGH H. SIVERD, Assignee of the property of Goss & McConn, had notice printed in paper to creditors of Willis S. Goss and William V. McConn, formerly doing business under the firm name of Goss & McConn at East Geuda Springs, announcing that on June 10, 1884, at the office of the county clerk of the district court of Cowley County in Winfield he would proceed publicly to adjust and allow demands against the estate of the said Goss & McConn.
[BLIND TIGER STRIKES BACK.]
Arkansas City Traveler, February 13, 1884.
Some time ago, as our citizens will remember, the temperance people of Arkansas City paid their respects to a piece of anatomy called Wilson, who was engaged in the highly respectable business of running a sightless felis tigris (commonly called a blind tiger), where the thirsty multitude could obtain the necessary moisture for their parched whistles without the embarrassing necessity of looking the vender in the face. This social call on our eminent friend Wilson was a revelation to him and a revolution to the building he occupied, resulting in the complete demolition of his stock of bug juice and a very pointed invitation for him to seek more congenial climes. He left by next train, and the next heard of him was through a summons served on seventeen of our principal citizens last week to appear before the district court of Cowley County and answer, in the sum of $13,000, to the charge of destroying personal property and a government license. Wilson’s attorney sails under the cognomen of Benson, is said to hail from Kansas City, and promises to completely paralyze the men who were engaged in the terrible work of destruction. The government license happened to be in our post office at the time, where it still remains, but of course that doesn’t make any difference where such a sum as $13,000 is in consideration. It is barely possible that these aggrieved gentlemen may find some obstacles in the way before they succeed in recovering the full $13,000, but we wish them all the fun possible out of the transaction.