JUDGE E. S. TORRANCE.

                                                                 Winfield.

             [Note: In the early days his name was sometimes given as “Torrence.”]

Elisha S. Torrance was born at New Alexandria, Pennsylvania, in 1846, the son of the Rev. Adam Torrance, of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, born in 1801. Notice of the death of Rev. Adam Torrance was printed on October 27, 1881, indicating that Rev. Adam Torrance died at New Alexandria, Pennsylvania, on October 18, 1881, in the 81st year of his life of inflammation of the bowels, after a sickness of one week. Rev. Adam Torrance was  of Scotch-Irish extraction. He studied theology and was ordained as a minister of the Presbyterian church in 1832. He was married the same year and settled as the pastor of the Presbyterian church at Lexington, Ohio, where he preached about five years. He then removed to New Alexandria, Pennsylvania, where he served as the pastor of the Presbyterian church for more than 30 years.

Rev. Torrance was chaplain of the 11th Pennsylvania Reserve Corps in the war of the rebellion, and “stayed with the boys” in all the battles in which the regiment participated while he was in the service, which was about two years. He was a great lover of his country and inherited an intense patriotic feeling from his father, who was an officer in the war of the revolution.

E. S. Torrance graduated at the Washington and Jefferson College, Pennsylvania, in 1867, at the age of 21. He then continued the study of law in the offices of distinguished attorneys, the last of whom was the Hon. Almerin Gillett, at Emporia, from January 1 to September 15, 1870, at which time he came to Cowley County and commenced the practice of law.

WINFIELD 1873:

E. S. Torrance, 26. No spouse listed.

WINFIELD 1874:

E. S. Torrance, 28. No spouse listed.

WINFIELD 1878:

E. S. Torrance, 32; spouse, V., 30.

WINFIELD 1880:

E. S. Torrance, 34; spouse, Virginia, 33.

                                               FROM THE NEWSPAPERS.

Emporia News, September 16, 1870.

J. C. Topliff, late of Topliff & French, in the shoe business, and J. L. Hamilton and E. Torrence, sprigs of the law, had their scalp-locks cut short, and with their pants in their boots, shaded by broad brimmed hats, in a two-mule wagon, with a mowing machine, departed day before yesterday for the great Southwest, to “make hay while the sun shines.” How they will roll up the hay cocks! We’ll call at your ranch, boys, the first opportunity.

Newspaper at a later date confirmed the above...

Winfield Courier, June 5, 1884.


We notice by the papers in the 13th Judicial District that Judge E. S. Torrance, of Winfield, was, on the 20th inst., renominated by acclamation. We take pleasure in mentioning this fact because Mr. Torrance read law and was admitted to the bar in this city in 1870. In November of that year he was elected county attorney of Cowley County, which position he held several years. He was elected judge of the 13th district in 1880. The judge made a nice and feeling speech in accepting the nomination and the compliment implied. Some months since he was spoken of as a possible candidate for a place on the supreme bench. But this unanimous nomination and hearty acceptance would indicate that he was going to stay with his friends another four years. Emporia News.

The Commonwealth, November 15, 1870.

                                                               COWLEY.

The people’s ticket, with the exception of county attorney and register of deeds, is elected by about 50 majority. Col. E. C. Manning is elected representative by 64 majority. Stover’s majority in the county is 348. The following are the county officers elect: T. B. Ross, probate judge; J. M. Patterson [Pattison], sheriff; E. P. Hickok, district clerk; A. A. Jackson, county clerk; George B. Green, treasurer; E. S. Torrence [Torrance], county attorney; W. A. Smith, register of deeds; H. L. Barker, surveyor; Dr. H. B. Kellogg, coroner; L. B. Walmsley, school superintendent; E. Simpson, G. H. Norton and T. A. Blanchard, commissioners.

Note the address given in the next two items...

Cowley County Censor, March 18, 1871.

                                                            ATTORNEYS.

E. S. TORRANCE. Attorney at law, and County Attorney for Cowley County. Practices in the courts of Cowley and adjoining counties and in the United States Land office.

                 Office: next door north of Walnut Valley House, Winfield, Kansas.

Cowley County Censor, March 18, 1871.

FAIRBANKS, TORRANCE & BOYER, ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW. REAL ESTATE! INSURANCE AND U. S. CLAIM AGENTS.

                            [J. B. FAIRBANKS/E. S. TORRANCE/W. M. BOYER]

OFFICE: Main Street, opposite Court House, Winfield, Cowley County, Kansas.

[REPUBLICAN COUNTY CONVENTION.]

Cowley County Censor, October 21, 1871.

Last Saturday the Republican Delegate Convention met at this place and, notwithstanding the day was stormy and disagreeable, all the townships were represented except Creswell. The follow­ing named gentlemen were the delegates.

Richland Township: James Kelly and Frank Cox.

Windsor Township: S. Wilkins, B. H. Clover, and John Dudley.

Vernon Township: Geo. Easterly, T. A. Blanchard, and F. A. Schwantes.

Beaver Township: T. W. Morris, B. Y. Hunt, and L. M. Kennedy.

Tisdale Township: G. W. Foughty and A. B. Lemmon.

Pleasant Valley Township: W. E. Cook, D. Hostetter, and S. W. Greer.

Rock Township: John Irwin, A. V. Polk, W. H. Grow, and J. Funk.

Dexter Township: Jas. McDermott, J. H. Reynolds, and G. P. Wagner.

Winfield: E. S. Torrance, I. H. Coon, J. W. Hornbeak, C. A. Bliss, J. A. Myton, Capt. Tansey, D. A. Millington, and Jno. Stannard.

The convention was called to order by J. McDermott, Chairman of the Central Committee.


E. S. Torrance was chosen temporary Chairman and L. H. Coon, Secretary.

Walnut Valley Times, March 29, 1872.

                                                     DOWN THE VALLEY.

EDITOR TIMES: In company with E. S. Stephenson, our well known artist, I bid farewell to our thriving little village on Sunday last, and departed for Winfield, the County seat of Cowley County. In passing down the Valley, one cannot but become enthusiastic over the rapid progress and development made by our enterprising and energetic farmers. . . .

We finally beheld Winfield and ere long we alighted at the “Bradish House,” where we found Judge W. P. Campbell and others of the legal fraternity assembled and engaged in interesting conversation. The “Bradish House” is indeed one of the best hotels in the Valley, and travelers will always find an accommo­dating hostess, and table spread with the best the market af­fords. . . . Perambulating through Main Street, we finally strolled into the Messenger office, where we found the typos “slinging type with a vengeance.” We had the pleasure of an introduction to the editor, Mr. Kerns, who we found a polite, clever, and affable gentleman.

Hearing the stentorian voice of Mr. Parker, the Sheriff of the County, announcing the District Court in session, we repaired to the Court Room where we found Judge Campbell on the bench presiding with his usual dignity and grace.

We had the pleasure of forming an acquaintance with Col. Alexander, R. B. Saffold, E. S. Torrance, Col. Manning, Judge Johnson, and Capt. Fairbanks, all members of the legal fraterni­ty, and composing the Winfield Bar.

Judging from conversations with members of the Bar, I should infer that Judge Campbell, by his courteous and affable manner as a citizen, his ability, integrity, and sobriety as a Judge, is gaining many friends, and will no doubt shed luster upon the position he now so ably fills. . . . A. B.

[JUDICIAL CONVENTION.]

Winfield Messenger, July 12, 1872.

A Convention of the Attorneys of the 13th Judicial District will be held at Winfield, in Cowley County, on the 25th day of July, A. D. 1872, for the purpose of recommending to the District Convention, or Conventions, to be held for that purpose, a Candidate for nomination for Judge of said District to be voted for at the next general election.

W. S. TUCKER.                      J. T. SHOWALTER.

M. W. SUTTON.                    J. M. HOOVER.

D. F. BAYLESS.                     J. B. FAIRBANKS.

THOMAS MASON.               W. H. KERNS.

J. M. McCOLLEN.                 JOHN REED.

J. J. WINGAR.                        E. B. KAGER.

R. B. SAFFOLD.                     E. L. AKIN.

D. N. CALDWELL.                A. H. GREEN.

T. T. TILLOTSON.                 D. S. HEISHEY [?HEISNEY].

L. J. WEBB.                            JOHN G. TUCKER.

E. S. TORRANCE.                  REUBEN RIGGS.

J. M. ALEXANDER.               S. D. PRYOR.


E. C. MANNING.             T. H. JOHNSON.

H. D. LAMB.                           G. P. GARLAND.

D. DODGE.                             J. McDERMOTT.

and many others, attorneys of said district.

[COMMISSIONERS’ PROCEEDINGS.]

Winfield Messenger, July 12, 1872.

Board of County Commissioners met in Co. Clerk’s office in Winfield July 1st, 1872. Present: Frank Cox, O. C. Smith, and J. D. Maurer.

The following bills were acted upon.

                                       E. S. Torrance, County Attorney, $500.00.

                                            E. S. Torrance, Office Rent, $30.00.

Winfield Messenger, August 16, 1872.

                                              GRANT AND WILSON CLUB.

The Republicans of Winfield and vicinity met at the court­house in this place on last Saturday evening for the purpose of organizing a Grant and Wilson Club. The organization of the club was perfected by the adoption of a constitution and by-laws, and the election of the following named persons as  permanent officers: L. J. Webb, president; E. B. Kager, Vice President; E. S. Torrance, secretary; H. Brotherton, Treasurer.

J. A. Myton, E. Davis, and E. P. Hickok were elected as members of the executive committee.

Winfield Messenger, August 30, 1872.

              PROCEEDINGS OF THE REPUBLICAN COUNTY CONVENTION.

Convention proceeded to ballot for the following officers.

County Attorney: E. S. Torrance 37; J. I. Mitchell 29.

Winfield Messenger, September 20, 1872.

                                          REPUBLICAN COUNTY TICKET.

For County Attorney: E. S. Torrance.

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

Winfield Messenger, October 18, 1872.

The candidates for the various offices to be filled this fall are now before the public.

E. S. Torrance and R. B. Saffold are both popular candidates for County Attorney.

[BOARD OF COWLEY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.]

Winfield Courier, Saturday, January 11, 1873.

E. S. Torrance, serves as Co. Attorney: $250.00.

Winfield Courier, Saturday, January 11, 1873.

RECAP: William E. Steinhour, Plaintiff, against Benjamin F. Martin, Defendant. Land attached: Northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section five, township 32, south of range 3 east, in Cowley County...Judgment $50, and interest thereon from Nov. 1st, 1871. FAIRBANKS & TORRANCE, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Walnut Valley Times, January 17, 1873.


WITHDRAWN. We learn from the Arkansas Traveler that the County Commissioners of Cowley County, have in accordance with the legal advice of County Attorney Torrance, withdrawn the two bond propositions recently submitted to a vote of the citizens. It is claimed that if the bonds are passed, they cannot be legally issued.

Winfield Courier, Saturday, January 18, 1873.

                                                      COUNTY OFFICERS.

Judge 13th Judicial District: W. P. Campbell.

Board of County Commissioners: Frank Cox, Chairman; O. C. Smith, J. D. Maurer.

County Clerk: A. A. Jackson.

County Treasurer: E. B. Kager.

Probate Judge: T. H. Johnson.

Register of Deeds: J. F. Paul.

Deputy Register: Jno. W. Curns.

Sheriff: James Parker.

Deputy Sheriff: W. E. Dowd.

Coroner: G. P. Waggoner.

County Attorney: E. S. Torrance.

Clerk District Court: James Kelly.

County Surveyor: Manley Hemenway.

Deputy: W. W. Walton.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, February 20, 1873.

A Legal Change. A. H. Green will become a member of the law firm of Fairbanks and Torrance with whom he becomes associated on Monday next. The new firm will occupy the post office recently built on the west side of Main street for that purpose.

The popularity of the senior member with the people of the county, combined with the enterprise of the juniors, will draw them a large amount of professional business.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, March 6, 1873.

Fairbanks, Torrance & Green have removed to their new office.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, June 5, 1873.

At a meeting held last week in the Methodist church by a number of our citizens, it was resolved to have a celebration of the 4th of July at Winfield. A committee consisting of A. A. Jackson, E. S. Torrance, and James Kelly was appointed to corre­spond with Orators for the occasion. We want to meet our friends from the country, and unless we do something they will go—as many of them did last year—to Oxford, Lazette, and other places.

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

Winfield Courier, Thursday, August 7, 1873.

                                                         The Murder Trial.

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


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

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

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

Winfield Courier, Thursday, August 21, 1873.

A. H. Green, Esq., of the law firm of Fairbanks, Torrance & Green, has received the appointment of Deputy U. S. District Attorney. This is a good appointment, and we have no doubt will give our people entire satisfaction. Mr. Green is a young lawyer of considerable ability, and wrong doers, violators of the U. S. laws, need expect no favors at his hands.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, August 28, 1873.

At a meeting held by the children of Winfield on Wednesday of last week in the Methodist Church it was decided to have a picnic in Mr. Andrew’s grove on Friday Sept. 5th. The following committees were appointed.

To attend to the refreshments: Messrs. Quarles, Hill, Baldwin, Ellis, Kelly, Allison, Torrance, Freeland, and Newlin.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, October 2, 1873.

                                                                 A CALL.

                                                         Soldiers Reunion.

We, the undersigned, late Soldiers of the Union Army, take this method of calling a meeting of the Soldiers of Cowley and adjoining counties to meet at Winfield, October 18th, 1873, for the purpose of getting acquainted and having a good social time.

                                      E. S. Torrance, Co. G, 135 Pa. Vol. Infantry.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, October 23, 1873.

                                                   Meeting of the Veterans.

At half past 2 o’clock the soldiers, to the number of about 150, fell into line at the tap of the drum, and preceded by the Winfield Martial band, marched to the Methodist Church, which had been kindly tendered for their use. The meeting was called to order by T. A. Blanchard. L. J. Webb was chosen Chairman, and James Kelly, Secretary.

The chairman stated the object of the meeting to be to organize a permanent Soldiers’ Union.


On motion a committee consisting of A. A. Jackson, A. D. Keith, Capt. Wm. H. H. McArthur, Capt. Henry Barker, and Col. E. C. Manning were appointed on permanent organization.

During the absence of the committee, D. C. Scull entertained the meeting with a few appropriate remarks.

The committee on permanent organization reported as follows.

Mr. Chairman: Your committee on permanent organization, recommend the following as a permanent organization for Cowley County, of the Union Soldiers of the late war.

1st. The association of all soldiers into an organization to be known as the Cowley County Soldiers’ Association.

2nd. That said association elect a president, 3 vice presidents, secretary, and assistant secretary, and treasurer, and adopt a constitution.

3rd. That said association request its members to subscribe the constitution as an evidence of membership, giving the re­quired company or battalion to which each belonged, and to attend the meetings of the association.

4th. That said association meet semi-annually for celebra­tions, and as much oftener as business requires. A. A. JACKSON, Chairman.

The above was unanimously adopted. The roll being called; the following “Boys in Blue,” answered to their names.

                                                         PENNSYLVANIA.

John McClay, Co. E, 55th Penn. Inf.

E. S. Torrance, Co. G, 135 Pa. Vol. Inf.

D. N. Egbert, Philadelphia Union League Bat.

The following were appointed a committee to make arrange­ments for the next meeting.

A. A. Jackson, L. J. Webb, J. P. Short, E. S. Torrance, and James Kelly.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, October 30, 1873.

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

Winfield Courier, Thursday, November 13, 1873.

Tuesday morning E. S. Torrance, our County Attorney, started for his home in Pennsylvania to visit his parents, and two sisters, who have returned on a visit from their residence in South America. He was escorted to Wichita by M. L. Read and the Grand Mogul of the COURIER.

Winfield Courier, January 16, 1874.

County Attorney Torrance is expected home next week.

Winfield Courier, February 6, 1874.

James McDermott, E. S. Torrance, W. W. Walton, and James Kelly returned home last Monday night.

Rucker, Slater, Bryant, Young, Torrance: items follow...


Winfield Courier, January 2, 1874.

                                    A SHOCKING TRAGEDY AT LAZETTE!

         A MAN STABBED TO THE HEART AND DIES ALMOST INSTANTLY.

                   THE BLOW CLAIMED TO BE STRUCK IN SELF-DEFENSE.

                   THE ACCUSED WAIVES TRIAL AND IS LODGED IN JAIL.

One of the saddest affairs we have ever been called upon to chronicle occurred at the town of Lazette, in this county, at a masquerade ball given there last Christmas eve. The chief actors in the horrible tragedy were Winfield Scott Osborn, the victim, and Thomas T. Rucker, the accused, of Lazette. Being somewhat acquainted with the accused, and desiring to give a true version of the affair, we went to the jail and got the story from Mr. Rucker himself, and which runs something like the following.

Rucker was introduced by Osborn to a Miss Della Coates and requested her to dance with him, which she refused to do disguis­ed as he then was (Rucker being masked) and on turning to leave her he encountered Osborn, who said: “What is this game you’re trying to play on me?” Rucker replied that he was not trying to play any game on him, when Osborn retorted in an angry and excited manner, “Come out here G__d d___n you; and I’ll whip h__l out of you.” Rucker told him that he had done nothing but was not afraid to fight; whereupon the pair accompanied by a number of others went outside.

What happened after that the accused very properly refuses to disclose, and only adding that the many wild and exaggerated accounts already afloat will not be believed, but asks the public suspend their judgment until the facts are brought out in a fair and impartial trial.

Thomas T. Rucker, the accused, was born in New Orleans, and was 27 years old last July; he is of medium height, light hair, blue eyes, and has none of that “bully look” generally accredited to persons accused of such a crime, but on the other hand would strike the close observer as a young man who must have had the advantage of good moral training in his younger days. He is well known at Lazette and on Timber Creek, where he bears an excellent character.

Of the murdered Osborn we can say but little. He, we understand, was almost a stranger in Lazette, having come there from Joplin, Missouri. Rucker says he never met him to speak to him until the evening before the fatal Christmas eve.

The prisoner after learning what he had done, no doubt overcome with fear and remorse  as well as appalled at the consequences of the bloody deed, attempted to kill himself. In speaking of his widowed mother, who lived at Burlington, Missou­ri, and how the sad news would affect her, the prisoner was deeply moved and could hardly answer our questions, which shows that he is not at all insensible, nor without feeling. What the Coroner’s Jury will show we do not at this writing know, as the result of their deliberations have not been transmitted to this place.

Winfield Courier, January 30, 1874.

                                                    PRISONER ESCAPED!

                                                Rucker’s Lodgings Vacated!!

                                              Worthlessness of the City Jail!!


Wednesday morning last, our city was thrown into a tumult of excitement by the announcement that Thos. Rucker, the Lazette murderer, who had been confined in the city jail at this place since the tragedy last Christmas was missing. The inhabitants of the town immediately proceeded to the jail and soon found that it was no hoax, but a bona fide fact. Scouts were immediately dispatched in every direction, but failed to discover any trace of his whereabouts.

The means by which he escaped are very indefinite. It is generally supposed that some outside party opened the doors and gave him his liberty, although it is possible that he had the tools furnished, and did the work himself. At any rate he has gone and the next thing is to find him, although Sheriff Walker is confident that he will soon have his hands on him, as well as the one who gave him his freedom.

And while he is gone, it would be well if the city council would put the jail in a condition to hold him an hour or so if he should be brought back. A man who has a friend in the world and wishes to get out need not stay in his cell an hour. In the first place, there is nothing to prevent anybody giving a prison­er anything they wish, as the windows have nothing to protect them except some iron bars with space enough between to throw a sledge hammer.

Then again, the jail is at least twenty rods from the nearest human habitation, and the building could be bombarded with a ten pound cannon and the noise would be hardly heard by the citizens at home. The doors are also in such a shape that Rucker could easily have lifted them off the hinges with a crow bar. If some protection was put around the windows and the upper story occupied by a family, it would become more difficult for a prisoner to make his escape when LAST THREE LINES IMPOSSIBLE TO READ.

Winfield Courier, February 6, 1874.

Last Tuesday Sheriff Walker arrested, on Grouse Creek, Wm. Slater and a man named Bryant charged with assisting Thomas Rucker to break jail last week. Mr. Wm. Slater is an uncle of Rucker’s. Before leaving, Rucker gave Slater a deed to his land. Bryant owned up to his part of the transaction, which was the bringing of a horse from Slater’s to Rucker wherewith to make his escape. The men were up for a hearing before ’Squire Boyer yesterday, but the case was continued until Saturday, when if any charge is found against them, they will be taken to Emporia for safe keeping.

Winfield Courier, February 13, 1874.

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

Winfield Courier, February 20, 1874.

                                                           An Explanation.

                                                 Winfield, February 17, 1874.

EDITOR COURIER: As a misapprehension seems to exist in the minds of some in regard to the ownership and occupancy of the jail in this city, will you allow me through your columns to make a statement of the facts in the case.


On the 19th of April last, a written contract was entered into between the City of Winfield and the County of Cowley, according to the terms of which, the county was to build a Courthouse at Winfield at a cost of $10,000 county orders, or $8,500 cash. The City of Winfield was to erect a city building at the cost of $2,500 in which was to be a jail for the accommo­dation of both city and county, and the city was to give to the county the free use of the jail for the confinement of prisoners, so long as the county should want it for that purpose. Both buildings were built according to contract, each costing some­thing more than the specified sum. The city building is two stories high. On the first floor are six cells with grated windows, and four of the cells have iron doors; the doors of two are of hardwood. The second story is finished as a hall. On the completion of the jail, the key was delivered to me by the builder, and at the request of Sheriff Parker—he having a prisoner ready to occupy the jail—I delivered the key to him, since which time the city has never had control of the jail proper. The city has held possession of the hall over the jail, which has been used for various purposes by permission of the city.

I presume that the misapprehension that exists arises from the fact that J. M. Young, who was acting jailor by appointment of Sheriff Parker, and afterwards by Sheriff Walker, was also City marshal; but the city never claimed any control of his acts as jailor, nor did he receive any instructions as such from the city authorities. Since the escape of the prisoner Rucker, the Sheriff deeming it necessary that the hall over the jail should be constantly occupied, the County Commissioners asked for a conference with the City Council, which was immediately convened for that purpose. At this conference the city offered to give to the county the use and control of the entire building, both stories, on condition that the prisoners of the city should be taken care of without expense to the city, except for board which the city would pay for. I believe the city has honestly and faithfully complied with the terms of the contract, and even offered more than required. S. C. SMITH.

Winfield Courier, February 27, 1874.

                                                      District Court Docket.

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

                                                    CRIMINAL DOCKET.

                                                             FIRST DAY.

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

3. The State of Kansas versus William Slater.

                                              CIVIL DOCKET. NINTH DAY.

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

Winfield Courier, March 27, 1874.

Ex-Marshal Young was arrested last Tuesday, charged with having assisted in the escape of T. T. Rucker from the jail at this place, some time since.

[DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS.]

Winfield Courier, April 10, 1874.

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

Winfield Courier, September 4, 1874.


A petition is circulating for the purpose of getting the Governor’s pardon for Bryant, the man who was sent to the peni­tentiary at the spring term of court for assisting Rucker to escape.

                                                                     

Back to E. S. Torrance...

Winfield Courier, February 27, 1874.

MONEY TO LOAN. C. C. Harris loans money cheaper than any other man in the county. Apply to Fairbanks, Torrance & Green, or to himself at Winfield.

Winfield Courier, March 27, 1874.

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

Elisha S. Torrance...

Winfield Courier, April 10, 1874.

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

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

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

Winfield Courier, April 10, 1874.

                                                                 RECAP.

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

DEFENDANT: John N. Yerger.

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

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

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

                                   Note: Believe this was the “Cave Brewery.”

                            NEXT ITEM CALLS FOR SALE OF THE PROPERTY.


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

DEFENDANT: John N. Yerger.

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

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

Winfield Courier, April 24, 1874.

“Quite a novel lawsuit is pending before ’Squire Boyer, between Geo. Miller and a prominent lawyer in this city. The case is as follows. Just before court adjourned at the last term, T. H. Suits, Esq., arose and addressed the Court in a little short facetious speech and informed his honor, Judge Campbell, that as it has been the custom from time immemorial for the members of the bar, on the occasion of the departure of anyone of their number from their midst, to meet and jollify in some way, pass resolutions of respect, etc. And now it was generally understood that one of them was about to depart a life of single cussedness, and submit his neck to the benedictine yoke. Therefore, the speaker moved that said candidate for matrimonial honors be notified that the Court and bar expected him to set up the oysters.

“The Court entering at once into the spirit of the joke, appointed T. H. Suits, R. B. Saffold, and E. S. Torrance to carry out the programme. This was faithfully attended to by the committee and about 9 o’clock p.m., of that day, the Court, members of the bar, clerks, and sheriff’s, sat down to a splendid supper at the St. Nicholas, kept by Geo. Miller, who is noted the country over for serving his guests with the best the market affords. A jollier time was never seen in Winfield. The lawyer seemed to enjoy the good things set before him as much as the worst gourmand there; perhaps in anticipation of the way he was going to fool that court and bar, or perhaps he liked the tone of the speeches, or the sentiment of the toasts, or the sparkle of the wine, or, perhaps it was because he was hungry, he, perhaps not having eaten a good square meal for some days previous, or it may have been all combined; certain it is that he seemed well pleased with the entertainment.

“After allowing a reasonable time to elapse, Mr. Miller sent his bill to the victim, who refused to come down with the scads, greenbacks, dingbats (or whatever those things are called which you swap for oyster suppers). The other members of the bar learning that the ‘little bill’ had gone to protest, magnanimous­ly agreed each to pay for his own. And now our friend is sued for the quantity of oysters and wine he was supposed to have stowed away under his vest, on that, to the other starvelings, very pleasant occasion, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of one dollar and seventy cents.


“And now the case is set for hearing next Monday. How it is likely to turn out, we, of course, don’t pretend to say, nor is this article written to bias public opinion, to suborn wit­nesses, or to assist the average Kansas juror to form an opinion; no, none of these; but it is written for the purpose of insisting that the public suspend their opinion and never condemn a man unheard, no matter how guilty or deserving of the gallows you may know the man to be. Let justice be done though the oysters be never paid for. George has retained all the lawyers in town, and if he don’t win, it will be because he has ‘too many cooks.’”

Winfield Courier, April 24, 1874.

                                                 Commissioner’s Proceeding.

                                              COWLEY CLERK’S OFFICE,

                                        Cowley County, Kan., April 16th, 1874.

The following is a list of bills allowed by the Board of County Commissioners at their last regular meeting, showing the amount to whom allowed, and for what purpose.

                                        E. S. Torrance, County Attorney: $250.00.

Winfield Courier, June 5, 1874.

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

Winfield Courier, June 12, 1874.

Judge R. B. Saffold and county attorney E. S. Torrance are back from Leavenworth.

Winfield Courier, June 19, 1874.

                                                      City Treasurer’s Report.

The City of Winfield in account with M. L. Robinson, Trea­surer, June 15th, 1874.

                                                               RECEIPTS.

                    May 12 By Fairbanks, Torrance, & Green, attorneys, license: $2.50.

Winfield Courier, August 28, 1874.          

Mr. and Mrs. L. T. Michener took leave of their friends and acquaintances, and left this city last Monday morning to take up their residence at their old home in Indiana. Mr. Michener and his estimable lady were residents of this city less than a year, but during that time they succeeded by their sociability and pleasing address in winning the friendship of all with whom they came in contact, and we know of no one whose departure would cause more sincere regret. The members of the bar met and passed resolutions of regret, at their departure, which will be found in another column.

                     [Skipped Bar Resolution to Michener. Covered rest of the meeting.]

                                                             Bar Meeting.

The members of the Winfield Bar met at the office of Fairbanks, Torrance & Green, on Saturday, August 22nd, 1874, to take some action in regard to the intended departure of one of their members, L. T. Michener.

Next two items concern Torrance, Wyatt, and an unnamed constable...

[DISPOSITION OF PRISONER: J. W. WYATT.]

Winfield Courier, September 4, 1874.

J. W. Wyatt, the ex-treasurer of School District No. 94 in this county, was arrested recently by the constable of Windsor Township, and yesterday he was brought to this city, by said constable, for safekeeping. He was arrested for embezzling $22.40 of the school money during his term of office, which expired a few days ago.


Shortly after the arrival in this city of the constable and his prisoner, the former came around to County Attorney Torrance and told him that the latter had given him the slip, and wishing to know what he should do about it.

Mr. Torrance told him that the best thing he could do would be to hunt him up.

“Where shall I look for him?” inquired the consta­ble.

“Look in the direction that you think he went,” said Torrance.

“But he ain’t guilty.”

“How do you know?”

“Well, I know he ain’t and I know that we can prove that he ain’t, so don’t you think that we had better let him go, and prove that he ain’t guilty afterward?”

“No,” said Torrance. “I don’t. After he has been proved to be inno­cent, there is plenty of time to let him go, so you had better hurry and hunt him up.”

The constable started for the door, but before he got to it, he turned round and remarked, “I don’t see any need for you to come clear over to our place just to prose­cute this innocent man. Hadn’t you better depute Mr. Story to set in your place and then write him a note saying that you don’t think the prisoner is guilty, and for Story not to appear against him!”

Upon this Torrance began to feel angry and told the consta­ble that the sooner he started after that prisoner, the sooner he would be apt to catch him and he needn’t trouble himself about the prosecution for he would be there himself to attend to the case.

In a short time the constable was seen to disappear behind the blacksmith shop opposite the Methodist church; and in about half an hour, he emerged on the back of his horse with the prisoner walking by his side and took his way back to Lazette.

Wyatt receives his trial before Justice Gans today.

Winfield Courier, September 11, 1874.    

The constable of Windsor Township who last week had charge of Wyatt, the defaulting treasurer of School District number 94, after trying in vain to let his prisoner get away from him while he was in this city, got on a drunk at Lazette and of course Wyatt didn’t feel it to be his duty to take care of the drunken constable, so he went off some place, and when County Attorney Torrance went to Lazette last Friday, to prosecute the case, no prisoner was there to proceed against.

E. S. Torrance...

Winfield Courier, September 18, 1874.

We, the undersigned citizens of Winfield, agree to attend a public meeting to be held in this city, to take into consider­ation the desirability of organizing a Literary and Scientific Association, having in view the establishment of a Library and Reading-Room, the employment of public lecturers, the encouragement of literature, and otherwise promoting moral and intellectual improvement. Said meeting to be held at the Court­house, at 7 o’clock p.m., on Tuesday, September 22, 1874.

(Signed) D. A. Millington, W. Q. Mansfield, E. S. Torrance, V. B. Beckett, M. L. Robinson, John E. Allen, James E. Platter, E. C. Manning, T. H. Johnson, A. H. Green, Wm. Bartlow, A. H. Hane, J. B. Fairbanks, J. W. Curns, G. S. Manser, and M. L. Read.

Winfield Courier, September 18, 1874.

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


                                               CIVIL DOCKET. SIXTH DAY.

                                        E. S. Torrance vs. County Commissioners.

Winfield Courier, September 25, 1874.

Saffold will beat St. Clair as much as he beat Torrance two years ago for County Attorney, he being snowed under by nearly seven hundred majority.

Winfield Courier, October 2, 1874.

Court convened last Monday, the following lawyers in attendance: Webb & Millington, Pryor & Kager, Fairbanks, Torrance & Green, Alexander & Saffold, Suits & Wood, E. C. Manning, W. P. Hackney, T. H. Johnson, and John E. Allen, of Winfield. J. Wade McDonald, of Wellington. M. S. Adams and Chas. Hatton, of Wichita. James McDermott, of Dexter; and C. R. Mitchell and L. B. Kellogg, of Arkansas City.

Winfield Courier, October 15, 1874.

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

Winfield Plow and Anvil, November 19, 1874.

                                                   OFFICIAL DIRECTORY

                                                          County Officers.

Judge 13th Judicial District.—W. P. Campbell.

Board of County Commissioners.—R. F. Burden, M. S. Roseberry, John Manly.

County Clerk.—M. G. Troup.

County Treasurer.—E. B. Kager.

Deputy Treasurer.—Frank Gallotti.

Probate Judge.—T. H. Johnson.

Register of Deeds.—N. C. McCulloch.

Supt. of Pub. Inst.—T. A. Wilkinson.

Sheriff.—R. L. Walker.

Coroner.—Sim. Moore.

County Attorney.—E. S. Torrance.

Clerk District Court.—James Kelly.

Deputy Clerk.—E. S. Bedilion.

County Surveyor.—W. W. Walton.

Examining Surgeon, U. S. Pensioners.—W. Q. Mansfield.

Winfield Courier, November 19, 1874.

Upon the invitation of the Maple Grove Grange of this county, a party consisting of Prof. Wilkinson, Mrs. Wilkinson, E. S. Torrance, Esq., Miss Helen Parmelee, ourself, and Mrs. Kelly attended the open session of that grange last Monday evening. This grange is held at what is called Ferguson’s schoolhouse in district 45. The schoolhouse is, perhaps, one of the best in the county outside of Winfield and Arkansas City. It cost the district nearly $1,000 in bonds. On our arrival we found the house full to overflowing with big and little grangers, the sons and daughters of honest toil.


The Grange was called to order by the Worthy Master, Mr. James H. Land, who briefly announced the object of the open session. An opening song being sung by the members, and prayer by the Chaplain, the grange was declared ready for business.

Winfield Courier, November 26, 1874.

E. S. Torrance is off on a flying visit to Topeka.

Winfield Courier, January 7, 1875.

                                                   HON. E. S. TORRANCE.

The above named gentleman took his departure this morning with the view of locating in some eastern city. Anticipating his departure, the members of the bar met night before last and passed a series of very appropriate resolutions, which will be found on another page of this paper.

In losing Mr. Torrance, not only Winfield, but Cowley County, loses one of her choicest citizens. As a lawyer we may say, without disparaging the claims of any other member, that he ranked foremost at our bar. As a citizen ‘tis enough to say that he was a gentleman in every sense of the word. As a friend he was invaluable. As county attorney of this county for four years, he was ever mindful of the public interests and managed his office with such skill and ability to say nothing of integri­ty, that he left it with the universal commendation and respect of the people. Let him go where he may, E. S. Torrance will long retain a warm corner in the hearts of the people of Cowley County.

Winfield Courier, January 14, 1875.

E. S. Torrance took his final departure from Winfield this morning.

Winfield Courier, January 14, 1875.

The law firm of Fairbanks, Torrance & Green has dissolved. See dissolution notice.

                                                   DISSOLUTION NOTICE.

NOTICE is hereby given that the co-partnership heretofore existing between the undersigned, under the firm name of Fairbanks, Torrance & Green has been dissolved by mutual consent. The firm has no debts, and all accounts due them will be settled with, by A. H. Green.

                             J. B. FAIRBANKS, E. S. TORRANCE, A. H. GREEN.

Winfield, Kansas, Jan. 11, 1875

Winfield Courier, January 14, 1875.

                                                             Bar Meeting.

At a meeting of the Winfield bar held at the office of J. E. Allen, Jan. 12th, 1875, D. A. Millington, Esq., was chosen chairman, and J. E. Allen, Secy. Col. E. C. Manning, S. D. Pryor, and A. J. Pyburn were appointed a committee on resolutions, who reported the following which were unanimously adopted.

WHEREAS, E. S. Torrance is about to leave us to establish for himself a more eastern home, therefore, we the members of the bar of Cowley County, state of Kansas, being duly assembled, adopt, as the voice of this meeting the following resolutions.

Resolved, That it is with deep regret that we part with a brother attorney so able and eminent in his profession, so urbane and gentlemanly in his deportment, so noble and generous in his instincts, so honorable in his transactions, so incorruptible in his integrity as is E. S. Torrance.


Resolved, That we lose by his departure one of the brightest ornaments of the Bar, one of the most promising of the rising young men of our district, true and energetic as an advocate and counselor and faithful as a friend.

Resolved, That as County Attorney of this county for two terms, covering a period of four years last past, he has been ever faithful to the interests of the public, allowing no person­al or political considerations to swerve him from the strict line of duty, and has ever discharged his official labors with distin­guished ability and scrupulous integrity.

Resolved, That we heartily commend him to all with whom his lot may be cast and that we earnestly hope and believe that he is yet destined to make a bright record in the history of our county.

Resolved, That the secretary be directed to furnish each of the county papers with a copy of these resolutions, requesting their publication. D. A. MILLINGTON, Chairman.

J. E. ALLEN, Secretary.

Winfield Courier, February 11, 1875.

On the 19th day of January, E. S. Torrance was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of this state, and on the 8th inst., L. J. Webb was admitted.

Winfield Courier, September 2, 1875.

Mr. Fairbanks, when last heard from, had picked up the ear-ripressible E. S. Torrance, and together they were journeying toward their father-land. Happy, two.

                                               THE WINFIELD COURIER.

                                                     CENTENNIAL ISSUE.

                         WINFIELD COURIER, THURSDAY, JANUARY 6, 1876.

                          PRODUCED EVERY THURSDAY BY E. C. MANNING.

COUNTY ATTORNEYS.

E. S. TORRANCE       Nov. 8, 1870.        Jan. 8, 1873.

E. S. TORRANCE       Nov. 5, 1872.        Jan. 11, 1875.

A. J. PYBURN                  Nov. 3, 1874.

1870.

When the Commissioners met to canvass the votes after the election, they found the returns to be in a crude and some of them in an unintelligible condition. In the language of G. H. Norton, one of the Commissioners, and a brother of H. B. Norton, “The next returns opened were objected to by Mr. Blanchard (another member of the board of canvassers) on the ground that he did not know where it came from. Upon examination I found there was nothing on them to indicate where they came from. I suggest­ed to the board that perhaps they knew some of the names on the poll book and could tell from them what precinct the returns came from. The other members both stated they did not know any of the names and as I did not, I voted with them to reject the returns.”

The rejection of the unintelligible returns gave the “People’s” ticket a large majority except in the offices of County Attorney and Register of Deeds. The election of T. B. Ross was contested before T. H. Johnson, County Attorney, presid­ing as judge, with J. C. Fuller and E. S. Torrance, the incoming County Attorney, then a resident of Arkansas City, as associate judges. The “Court” decided that Ross was entitled to the certificate. Some steps were taken to contest Mr. Manning’s seat in the legislature but the idea was finally abandoned.


Winfield Courier, April 27, 1876.

E. S. Torrance, ex-County Attorney, ex-member of the Winfield club of jolly good-fellows, exactly the man we all like to meet, enjoyed such a hand shaking, on his return to Winfield last Saturday, as no one but a President of the United States ever received.

Winfield Courier, June 1, 1876.

Attention is called to the card of the new law firm of Messrs. L. J. Webb and E. S. Torrance in this issue. These gentlemen are so well known in our county that it would be useless to say that they will command a good practice.

NOTICE SHOWED: Office upstairs, over Mrs. Howard’s Millinery Store, Winfield, Kansas.

Winfield Courier, July 13, 1876.

Suit has been brought against Winfield city for false imprisonment. Webb & Torrance, attorneys for plaintiff. It will be an interesting case.

Winfield Courier, August 10, 1876. Editorial Page.

                           THE CENTENNIAL REFORMERS OF WINFIELD.

                                       Driven into their Holes and Smoked out.

                                       A Chapter of History Worth Preserving.

Recap: Involved Winfield Township: Republican local hierarchy versus local Democrats and Independents (self-styled Reformers).

At meeting in Courthouse 45 “Reformers” tried to control the organization of meeting called to obtain candidate for State Senator nomination from 88th representative district.

“Suddenly A. H. Green, a ‘leading Reformer,’ took the floor and called the meeting to order and nominated as chairman one of his followers. . . . James Kelly, chairman of the Republican Township Committee, called the meeting to order and L. J. Webb nominated Capt. J. S. Hunt as chairman. A rising vote was called for, resulting in 39 for, 12 against Hunt, a few not voting. J. P. Short was chosen secretary. . . . The balloting commenced and a large number of names had been registered, all of which voted for what were known as the Manning delegates, whereupon ‘the Reformers’ discovered that they were in the wrong conven­tion. . . . Subsequently, and after nearly 100 ballots had been cast, and many voters had retired from the hall, W. P. Hackney and two or three others returned to the meeting and complained that the call for the meeting was irregular and he thereupon gave notice that on next Tuesday Aug. 8th at 4 o’clock p.m., the Republicans would hold another meeting. He and Tansey denounced the resolutions [made voters pledge themselves to support Hayes & Wheeler] as a gag and the meeting untimely, etc. Aligned against them: Prof. A. B. Lemmon, E. S. Torrance, L. J. Webb, Samuel Burger, and S. W. Greer.

The Cowley County Telegram dated August 4, issued on Monday morning, August 8, had the following article.

                                      MORE CONTEMPTIBLE TRICKERY.


Within the past few days Cowley County has been the scene of more of that contemptible trickery and political intrigue and corrupt practices which has made the leaders of the Republican party, in the county, so odious in the sight of an honest people. And especially was Winfield the ground on which one of the dirtiest of these jobs was put up. Knowing that if the masses of the party were present at the primary convention, called for the purpose of electing 10 delegates to the county and district conventions, to be held on the 12th of the present month, the delegates selected by them, and who would, without question, vote for their men, no matter how odious they were, or what their records were, would stand no show for election. So they hit upon a plan whereby their friends would be sure to be present while the opposition would be busily at work on their farms and in their shops.

The day set by the county central committee was the 8th—the call so read—the Republican organ so stated in an editorial, and urged that upon that day every voter should turn out. Right in the face of this they quietly send out their strikers to tell the “faithful” that they must come in four days earlier, as the convention would be held then and their presence was needed. On the morning of the earlier day determined upon, a few posters were posted up in out-of-the-way places calling a primary for that afternoon. So far their little plan worked well, but when the Republicans who were opposed to this way of transacting business saw this, they went to work and gathered together a force suffi­cient to scoop them, which they would undoubtedly have done, had not one of the ring-leaders of the corrupt gang rushed through a resolution requiring that each man who voted should subscribe a pledge to support the nominees on the National, State, and county ticket. The “gag” a hundred or more Republi­cans refused to swallow, and they had it all their own way, electing their ticket by a majority equal to the number of their friends present. The whole proceedings were corrupt, illegal, and scandalous, and engineered by a set of political tricksters of whom the people of the whole county entertain feelings of the greatest disgust. It is only a continuation of the corrupt practices they have been foisting upon the people as Republican­ism for years past—and such a job as will cause the honest voters of the county to repudiate their entire outfit at the polls next November.

The men who managed the affair are respectively candidates for State Senator, County Superintendent, Probate Judge, Repre­sentative, District Judge, and County Attorney. Let the voters spot them. . . .

On Tuesday, August 8, before 4 o’clock, Cliff Wood, A. H. Green, T. K. Johnston, John D. Pryor, N. M. Powers, Joe Mack, and 5 or 6 others who do not desire to have their names published, because they do not approve of the action taken, slipped over to the courthouse one at a time by different routes and pretended to hold a meeting. . . . A few minutes before 4 p.m., Mr. Manning went to the courthouse to have the bell rung and upon entering the courthouse found that C. M. Wood was occupying a chair at the table as chairman and John D. Pryor occupying another chair in the capacity of secretary. Mr. Manning took the floor and inquired if the meeting was organized, and to what style of proceedings it had arrived whereupon a “reformer” at once moved an adjournment, which was at once put and carried, and ten of the purifiers of Cowley County politics fled the room in such haste as to leave three or four others who had not fully comprehended the trick, sitting in wonder at the unseemly haste of those present, and expecting to have a chance to vote for delegates.

As soon as Mr. Manning entered the room a bystander rang the bell, whereupon nearly one hundred voters poured over to the courthouse. A meeting was organized by electing S. D. Klingman as chairman and B. F. Baldwin secretary. The action of the “reformers” was related to the meeting. A committee on resolu­tions was appointed, which soon reported the following, which was adopted by sections, with but one dissenting voice to the first resolution.


They passed more resolutions, which endorsed the previous action taken.

Manning and his group won again!

Winfield Courier, August 10, 1876.

                                                               Delegates.

The following is a list of the delegates to the republican county convention, from the nine townships heard from.

Winfield: R. L. Walker, James Kelly, E. P. Kinne, M. G. Troup, T. B. Myres, C. C. Pierce, Nels Newell, Jno. Mentch, E. S. Torrance, and A. B. Lemmon.

Winfield Courier, August 10, 1876.

                                                    The Republican Caucus.

Last Saturday the Republicans of Winfield Township met in caucus at the courthouse, at 4 o’clock p.m., and elected the following delegates to the county convention, to be held next Saturday in Winfield.

R. L. Walker, A. B. Lemmon, Nels. Newell, T. B. Myers, C. C. Pierce, M. G. Troup, E. P. Kinne, James Kelly, E. S. Torrance, and John Mentch were elected delegates, and W. M. Boyer, T. L. King, John Weakly, S. M. Klingman, S. Johnson, H. L. Barker, G. W. Robertson, J. E. Saint, John C. Roberts, and A. Howland, alternates.

The vote stood 91 for the ticket elected and 9 for the ticket that was defeated. It is an able delegation and was very enthusiastically supported.

Winfield Courier, August 17, 1876. Editorial Page.

                                                 COUNTY CONVENTION.

The Republican county convention convened at the Courthouse, in Winfield, on Saturday, August 12th, at 1 o’clock p.m., and was called to order by A. B. Lemmon, chairman of the Republican county central committee. R. C. Story was elected temporary chairman and James Kelly secretary. A committee on credentials was appointed, consisting of Messrs. E. S. Torrance, J. W. Tull, A. B. Odell, T. R. Bryan, and S. M. Jarvis. The committee reported the following persons as having been duly elected as delegates and alternates to the convention.

Winfield: Delegates, R. L. Walker, A. B. Lemmon, Nels. Newell, T. B. Myers, C. C. Pierce, M. G. Troup, E. P. Kinne, Jno. Mentch, James Kelly, and E. S. Torrance. Alternates, W. M. Boyer, T. L. King, Jno. Weakly, S. D. Klingman, S. Johnson, H. L. Barker, G. W. Robertson, J. E. Saint, John C. Roberts, and A. Howland. E. S. TORRANCE, Chairman.

A. B. ODELL, Secretary.

On motion the report of the committee was adopted.

On motion the following named persons were elected as delegates to the 13th Judicial convention: W. B. Norman, T. R. Bryan, E. Shriver, S. M. Jarvis, Dan Maher, E. S. Torrance, and D. Elliott. Alternates: S. H. Aley, C. R. Mitchell, T. A. Wilkinson, S. S. Moore, L. Lippman, A. V. Polk, and A. B. Lemmon.

Winfield Courier, August 17, 1876.

                                            Eighty-Eighth District Convention.

Pursuant to call the delegates of the 88th Representative District met in Republican convention at the courthouse, in Winfield, at 10 o’clock a.m., Saturday, August 12, 1876.


R. C. Story, of Harvey Township, was elected temporary chairman, and C. H. Eagin, of Rock Township, temporary secretary.

On motion a committee on credentials was appointed, consist­ing of one delegate from each township present, to be named by the delegates themselves. The following named gentlemen composed the committee: E. S. Torrance, of Winfield; Alex. Kelly, Richland; J. W. Tull, Windsor; J. S. Wooley, Vernon; A. B. Odell, Ninnescah; and A. V. Polk, of Rock. Pending the report of the committee, Capt. James McDermott being called, came forward and made a brief speech, which was enthusiastically received, after which, a few remarks, in response to a call, were made by the temporary chairman.

The committee on credentials then submitted the following report.

“Your committee on credentials beg leave to report the following named persons entitled to seats as delegates in the convention.”

Winfield: R. S. Walker, A. B. Lemmon, Nels. Newell, T. B. Myers, C. C. Pierce, M. G. Troup, Jas. Kelly, E. P. Kinne, John Mentch, and E. S. Torrance.

Winfield Courier, August 24, 1876.

At the Republican Delegate Convention of the 13th Judicial District, which met at Winfield Courthouse August 21, 1876, called to order by A. B. Lemmon, chairman of the Judicial Committee, it was determined that the following were entitled to seats in the convention from Cowley County: W. B. Norman, E. S. Torrance, S. S. Moore, Dan’l. Maher, D. Elliott, E. Shriver, and S. M. Jarvis. Hon. W. P. Campbell was declared unanimous choice of the convention for Judge of the 13th Judicial District. E. S. Torrance of Cowley County became a member of the Central Judicial Committee for district.

Winfield Courier, September 14, 1876.

The City Hotel has a new register and blotter. The blotter contains the advertising cards of Messrs. Webb & Torrance, Wm. and Geo. Hudson, M. L. Read, J. D. Pryor, John Nichols, W. G. Graham, J. M. Reed, A. G. Wilson, B. F. Baldwin, Joe Likowski, Henry Jochems, J. B. Lynn, W. B. Gibbs, McGuire & Midkiff, and Hill & Christie. It the neatest register in the valley. Mr. Hudson is starting off on the right foot this time.

Winfield Courier, September 14, 1876.

H. T. FORD, who has been in the mercantile business here for two years, was arrested last Saturday and lodged in jail on the charge of disposing of his property with intent to defraud his creditors. A. G. Wilson, an endorser of one of his notes, made the affidavit and Ford was committed. Monday morning Webb & Torrance applied to Judge Gans for a writ of habeas corpus, which was not granted. Mr. Torrance is now in Chautauqua County before his honor, Judge Campbell, on the same business. Hackney & McDonald are attorneys for the creditors.

Winfield Courier, September 28, 1876.


Mr. Torrance returned from Topeka one day last week with the necessary “papers” to release his client, Mr. Ford, from jail. It will be remembered that Ford was arrested and lodged in jail on an affidavit charging him with disposing of his goods for the purpose of defrauding his creditors. Mr. Torrance applied for a writ of habeas corpus to the Probate Judge. After hearing the argument, Judge Gans decided not to release the prisoner. Mr. Torrance moved to vacate the order of arrest before Judge Camp­bell, at chambers. The motion was overruled. He then went to Topeka and applied to Associate Justice, D. M. Valentine, for a writ of habeas corpus. Hon. John Martin, the Democratic candi­date for Governor, appeared and argued the “other side of the case.” In the language of the lawyers, Mr. Torrance “got away with him,” for he gained his point, came home, and had his client released from custody.

Mr. Ford was shortly afterward re-arrested, however, on a new affidavit and order of arrest, and is now in jail awaiting next week’s term of court. A suit for damages may grow out of it, based on the ground of false impris­onment. Mr. Torrance has shown unusual persistency in the management of this case.

Winfield Courier, October 5, 1876.

The following attorneys are in attendance at the present term of court: M. S. Adams, of Wichita; L. B. Kellogg, of Emporia; C. R. Mitchell, A. Walton, and James Christian, of Arkansas City; James McDermott, Dexter; Webb & Torrance, Hackney & McDonald, Pyburn & Seward, D. A. Millington, J. M. Alexander, Jennings & Buckman, A. H. Green,

Pryor, Kager & Pryor, A. B. Lemmon, and John E. Allen, of Winfield.

Winfield Courier, November 9, 1876.

The Republicans of Winfield Township met pursuant to call, at the Courthouse Saturday, the 4th instant, and proceeded to nominate the following township ticket:” For trustee, J. S. Hunt; for Clerk, Ed. S. Bedilion; for treasurer, B. F. Baldwin; for justice of the peace, W. M. Boyer; for constables, Ed. R. Evans and Burt Covert. After which the following township central committee was chosen: Wirt W. Walton, C. C. Pierce, and S. E. Burger.

                                               J. M. ALEXANDER, Chairman.

E. S. TORRANCE, Secretary.

Winfield Courier, December 14, 1876.

The entertainment to be given tomorrow evening for the benefit of the M. E. church will be worthy of your patronage. Don’t fail to go.

Winfield Courier, December 14, 1876.

MESSRS. GALLOTTI, Pryor, Copeland, Roberts, Asp, Franklin, Baldwin, Geo. Robinson, Will Robinson, Ed. Holloway, Jennings, Buckman, and the writer, are on the popcorn committee.

LATER. Messrs. E. S. Torrance and O. M. Seward are on it too.

Winfield Courier, December 21, 1876.

                                                        Dissolution Notice.

NOTICE is hereby given that the partnership relation heretofore existing between L. J. Webb and E. S. Torrance, in the practice of the law, under the name of Webb & Torrance, has this day been dissolved. E. S. TORRANCE.

Winfield, Kansas, December 20, 1876.

[COURT DOCKET: OCTOBER TERM.]

Arkansas City Traveler, September 27, 1876.

The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the October term, A. D., 1876, of the District Court, and have been placed on the trial docket in the following order.

                                                          CIVIL DOCKET.

                                            E. S. Torrance vs. S. W. Green et al.

Winfield Courier, January 11, 1877.


A Card. The partnership heretofore existing between the undersigned and Mr. E. S. Torrance having been dissolved, I shall continue the practice alone, on my return from Topeka, and shall return in time to attend the District Court at its next session. L. J. WEBB.

E. S. Torrance marries Virginia Stewart...

Winfield Courier, February 8, 1877.         

MARRIED. TORRANCE - STEWART. At the residence of the bride’s sister in Winfield, Kansas, Feb. 1st, at 9 p.m., by Rev. J. E. Platter, Mr. E. S. Torrance to Miss Virginia Stewart.

The wedding was a quiet affair, a few family friends only being present. A. T. Stewart, the bride’s brother, came down from Kansas city the day previous to attend the nuptials, loaded with presents for the bride. As a lawyer, gentleman, or compan­ion, Mr. Torrance is not surpassed. As a husband may he be so great a favorite. Miss Stewart has long occupied an important place in Winfield society and the many friends of the newly wedded couple are rejoiced to know that two as worthy as they have joined fortunes for weal and woe.

From different members of the family and friends in Kansas City, the bride and groom were the recipients of many costly presents consisting principally of elegantly carved silverware.

Winfield Courier, February 15, 1877.

E. S. Torrance has moved his law office upstairs into the corner brick. Mr. Henry Asp is his assistant in the office.

Winfield Courier, February 15, 1877.

The suit of Seely vs. Kirk is compromised. It created considerable interest. Seely was the owner of a horse in Septem­ber last which Kirk shod. Shortly afterward the horse’s feet became useless. Seely claimed that the hoofs had been burned by Kirk’s shoeing and brought suit for damage. A jury trail was had before Squire Boyer. The jury were out thirty-six hours and failed to agree. The costs in the case ran up to over one hundred dollars, and then the parties compromised. Hackney & McDonald for plaintiff, and E. S. Torrance for defendant.

Winfield Courier, March 8, 1877.

A Kansas statute for 1869 was lost last Wednesday by Mr. E. S. Torrance, between this place and Little Dutch.

Winfield Courier, March 15, 1877.

E. S. Torrance and family are keeping house at home in the cottage north of M. L. Read’s stone mansion—or soon will be.

[COWLEY COUNTY TRIAL DOCKET.]

Arkansas City Traveler, May 9, 1877. Front Page.

The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the May term of the District Court, of Cowley County, to be begun and held on the first Monday, 7th day of May, A. D. 1877, and have been placed on the Trial docket in the following order.

                                            CIVIL DOCKET. SECOND DAY.

                                         Elisha S. Torrance vs. Samuel Greer et al.

Winfield Courier, May 10, 1877.


Martin Barber, who shot his brother some weeks ago at Dexter, was tried yesterday in the district court at this place before a jury and acquitted. Mr. E. S. Torrance was attorney for Barber.

Winfield Courier, May 10, 1877.

The following are the attorneys in attendance at the Cowley County district court now in session: L. J. Webb, J. E. Allen, D. A. Millington, Jennings & Buckman, E. S. Torrance, Hackney & McDonald, James McDermott, A. H. Green, Pyburn & Seward, J. M. Alexander, Pryor & Pryor, Henry E. Asp, Linus S. Webb, of Winfield; C. R. Mitchell, E. B. Kager, James Christian, of Arkansas City; A. L. Redden, of Eldorado; M. S. Adams, of Wichita; J. D. McBrian, of Sedan, Chautauqua County; J. M. White, of Howard City, Elk County.

[ATTORNEYS IN ATTENDANCE AT DISTRICT COURT.]

Arkansas City Traveler, May 23, 1877.

The following attorneys were in attendance upon the present term of the District Court: Hon. Alfred L. Redden, of Eldorado; Mr. White, Howard City; Judge M. S. Adams, Wichita; Mr. McBryan, Sedan; Hon. C. R. Mitchell, Amos Walton, Judge Christian, E. B. Kager and Col. McMullen, of Arkansas City; and Messrs. Hackney & McDonald, Pryor & Pryor, Jennings & Buckman, Pyburn & Seward, Jas. McDermott, Henry E. Asp, E. S. Torrance, J. E. Allen, L. J. & Linus Webb, D. A. Millington, A. H. Green, W. M. Boyer, J. M. Alexander, of Winfield.

Winfield Courier, August 30, 1877.

The District Court commenced its session on Monday with a light docket, and it is to be hoped that it will be cleared up this week. The following members of the bar present: Hon. W. P. Campbell, Judge; E. S. Bedilion, Clerk; R. L. Walker, Sheriff; M. S. Adams, of Wichita, C. R. Mitchell, E. B. Kager, and A. Walton, of Arkansas City; J. McDermott, County Attorney, J. E. Allen, A. J. Pyburn, O. M. Seward, W. M. Boyer, L. J. Webb, W. P. Hackney, J. W. McDonald, E. S. Torrance, H. E. Asp, D. A. Millington, S. D. Pryor, J. D. Pryor, F. S. Jennings, G. H. Buckman, and A. H. Green, of Winfield, attorneys.

Arkansas City Traveler, December 5, 1877.

The case of L. J. Webb vs. Sarah Requa occupied the whole of Tuesday in court, in which he sued the defendant for a balance of $72 on his fees as attorney in the suit of Requa vs. Requa, for divorce and alimony, tried in 1876—she having paid him $429, or rather attorney of record, W. P. Hackney, paid him the $429 out of her means. In this case she put in the defense that she did not employ him, but that she employed Hackney & McDonald, and that Hackney employed Webb to assist them, as he (Hackney) must of necessity be absent to attend the Legislature at Topeka.

J. W. McDonald and Judge Coldwell were retained for the plaintiff, and Torrance for the defense.

The case went to the jury as the court adjourned for supper. What the verdict will be is not known as we go to press.

Winfield Courier, January 10, 1878.

Mr. C. G. Buss, father of Mr. Henry Buss, of Ninnescah Township, has bought the Richards farm, near Ninnescah, for $2,000. He also bought a farm from Mr. E. S. Torrance, of this city. He says there are seven or eight families in his neighborhood, in Illinois, who will settle in this county in the spring.

Winfield Courier, January 17, 1878.


The COURIER office printed a long and ably written brief by E. S. Torrance, delivering it Monday morning of last week. On the following Wednesday that brief was read in the Supreme court at Topeka and won the cause. Moral: Get your briefs printed at the COURIER office.

Winfield Courier, January 31, 1878.

E. S. Torrance, attorney, has recently got up for the supreme court one of the clearest and most succinct briefs we ever saw. He uses the right word every time, and arranges his words in a manner that shows their full value. Of course, he had it printed at the COURIER office.

Winfield Courier, February 7, 1878.

A man by the name of Coon was on trial Monday and Tuesday before Justice Boyer, charged with abstracting timber from the lands belonging to the Charles Johnson estate. The jury of twelve men hung out all night Tuesday and yesterday morning brought in a verdict of guilty. Defendant moved for a new trial. County attorney McDermott for prosecution; E. S. Torrance for the defense.

Winfield Courier, February 21, 1878.

Hon. W. P. Hackney, of Winfield, one of the leading legal lights and wide-awake politicians of the Southwest, whose name has been almost a household word in the counties of Cowley and Sumner, and whose fame is co-extensive with the Third Congressional district, was in town last Friday. He was accompanied by E. S. Torrance, Esq., who is also building up a splendid practice. Both were interested in some case brought before his Honor, Judge Campbell, on the day mentioned. Wichita Eagle.

Winfield Courier, March 7, 1878.

                                                     Real Estate Transfers.

M. G. Troup, county clerk, furnishes the following report.

Nicholas Hostetler to E. S. Torrance, nw ¼ 31, 33, 4; 160 acres, $50.

Torrance has a girl...

Winfield Courier, April 11, 1878.

BIRTH. E. S. Torrance has lately won an important case in which he takes more pride than in most legal cases. It is a girl.

Winfield Courier, May 9, 1878.

                                                  District Court Proceedings.

Monday, May 6th, 10 o’clock a.m. His Honor, W. P. Campbell, on the bench. Present: C. L. Harter, sheriff; E. S. Bedilion, clerk; Jas. McDermott, prosecuting attorney; attorneys C. Coldwell, W. P. Hackney, Henry E. Asp, J. E. Allen, D. C. Beach, E. S. Torrance, J. M. Alexander, A. J. Pyburn, N. C. Coldwell, Jas. Christian, G. H. Buckman, S. D. Pryor, J. Wade McDonald, C. R. Mitchell, J. D. Pryor, C. C. Black, R. C. Story, L. J. Webb, W. M. Boyer, F. S. Jennings, and D. A. Millington.


The docket was called. The following cases were dismissed: Geo. Stewart vs. R. B. Waite, Jas. Renfro vs. M. J. Renfro, J. E. Cox vs. Mary J. Cox, State ex rel. Cessna vs. A. H. Thurman, Nancy McManus vs. John S. Harmon, Parker & Canfield vs. R. B. Scott, Margaret W. Vessels vs. T. J. Vessels, Houghton & McLaughlin vs. L. Maricle, S. P. Channell vs. L. Maricle, S. L. Brettun vs. Adam H. Beck, B. Crapster vs. Clara E. Houx et al, M. Harkins vs. Elizabeth C. Hunt, J. C. McMullen vs. P. F. Endicott et al., S. L. Brettun vs. L. D. Darnall et al, T. H. Barrett vs. W. D. Mowry et al.

Judgment for plaintiff by default was ordered in the following: M. L. Read vs. R. Hudson et al, B. C. Cook vs. W. F. Worthington, S. L. Brettun vs. J. C. Groce et al, Lizzie M. Martin vs. Peter Paugh, J. C. McMullen vs. J. Morgan et al, L. G. Yoe et al vs. T. E. Gilleland, A. W. Hoyt vs. Israel Tipton et al, E. Howland vs. J. W. Pearson et al, A. F. Faris vs. Julia A. Deming et al, Hackney & McDonald vs. W. W. Andrews, Mary H. Buck vs. M. Luckey, Samuel Hoyt vs. J. B. Gassaway, Buck, McCouns et al vs. T. E. Gilleland, Giesecke, Meysenburg & Co. vs. T. E. Gilleland, Charles Barr vs. T. J. Raybell, A. P. Dickey vs. T. A. Wilkinson.

The following cases were continued: H. Schieffer vs. J. F. Berner, L. McMasters vs. Nathan Hughes, Mercy M. Funk vs. Cynthia Clark et al.

The following cases stand on demurrer: H. B. Kay et al vs. D. B. McAllister, J. H. Hill vs. Geneva Jackson et al, J. C. McMullen vs. Martha Bowers et al, Elizabeth Meyer vs. W. H. Brown et al.

Motion was made by             to admit M. G. Troup as member of the bar. Court appointed G. H. Buckman, J. D. Pryor, and L. J. Webb a committee to examine the applicant and adjourned to half past one for the examination and to 8 o’clock on Tuesday morning for the further business of the court. In the afternoon the candidate was examined and admitted.

Tuesday, May 7. State vs. Coon; dismissed and defendant discharged.

State vs. Samuel Huston; H. E. Asp appointed by the court attorney for defendant.

State vs. N. Hostetler; defendant plead not guilty.

State vs. W. H. Bilson; defendant plead not guilty on both indictments.

H. B. Ray et al vs. D. B. McAllister; demurrer withdrawn and judgment for plaintiffs rendered.

J. C. McMullen vs. Martha Bowers, administratrix, et al.; F. S. Jennings appointed guardian, ad litem, of minor heirs of Reuben Bowers.

Venire for additional jurors ordered yesterday returned served on D. A. Byers, H. C. Catlin, H. C. McDorman, Simeon Martin, W. W. Thomas, J. W. Miller, L. B. Stone, A. C. Davis, and W. S. Gilman; John Young, A. C. Winton, and Andrew Ross not found.

State vs. Nicholas Hostetler called and trial proceeded; Attorneys J. McDermott for State, E. S. Torrance and H. E. Asp for defendant. This case occupied the balance of the day and is not concluded. It is a case in which an old man is charged with incest. The details of the evidence offered are not fit for publication.

Torrance in charge of six criminal cases...

The Daily Winfield Courier, Saturday Morning, May 11, 1878.

E. S. Torrance is the happiest man in town: and he has good reason to be, too. The winning of the Hostetler case has put a feather in his cap and will add much to his already good reputation as a criminal lawyer. He has worked hard and faithfully, and made his points with skill and sagacity. There are six criminal cases on docket in this court and Mr. Torrance is employed in every one. We believe, and have believed, that Mr. Torrance is one of the best lawyers in the state, and we predict a brilliant future for this gentleman.

The Daily Winfield Courier, Saturday Morning, May 11, 1878.

                                                  District Court Proceedings.


State vs. Samuel Houston. Plea in abatement overruled.

J. C. McMullen vs. James Stiner et al., judgment for plaintiff by default.

Lizzie M. Martin vs. M. D. L. Devore et al., judgment for plaintiff by default and foreclosure of mortgage.

J. H. Hill vs. Geneva Jackson et al. Set for Monday next.

E. Meyer vs. W. H. Brown et al., demurrer withdrawn and answer filed.

State vs. William H. Bilson; called and trial proceeded. Offense grand larceny. Jury empaneled as follows: J. M. Mark, B. B. Vandeventer, James Jackson, W. S. Gilman, M. A. Kelsey, J. W. Miller, John M. Gates, S. Elkins, J. H. Mounts, Abijah Howard, D. A. Byers, S. Martin. County Attorney appeared in behalf of the state and E. S. Torrance, H. Asp, and Amos Walton for the defendant. This case occupied the whole day and will come up again this morning.

                                                  District Court Proceedings.

Winfield Courier, May 16, 1878.

Wednesday, May 8. Charles Eagin, attorney from Rock, appeared in court today.

G. & C. Merriam vs. T. A. Wilkinson. Entered on the docket, and by confession, judgment rendered for plaintiffs.

The court has been occupied all day in the incest case of State vs. Hostetler.

The evidence was all in about 2:30 p.m. The charge of the court was elaborate and clear, and the arguments of the County Attorney, McDermott for the state, and of Mr. Torrance for the defense, were eloquent, searching, and exhaustive. Mr. Torrance addressed the jury for over four hours, when the court adjourned until this morning at 8 o’clock, when Mr. McDermott will again address the jury, and the jury will retire to consider their verdict.

The jurors trying this case are: Stephen Elkins, James Jackson, John M. Gates, Thessius McGinnis, Abijah Howard, Daniel Hunt, Clark Bryant, A. R. Davis, Samuel Huey, J. W. Miller, and Thos. Chaffee.

Thursday, May 9. State vs. N. Hostetler.

Hon. J. McDermott made his closing address to the jury, who retired, and a short time before noon brought in a verdict of “not guilty.” The defendant was discharged.

State vs. William H. Bilson; called and trial proceeded. Offense grand larceny.

Jury empaneled as follows: J. M. Mark, B. B. Vandeventer, James Jackson, W. S. Gilman, M. A. Kelsey, J. W. Miller, John W. Gates, S. Elkins, J. H. Mounts, Abijah Howard, D. A. Byers, S. Martin.

County Attorney appeared in behalf of the state and E. S. Torrance, H. Asp, and Amos Walton for the defendant. The case occupied the whole day and will come up again this morning.

County Attorney appeared in behalf of the state and E. S. Torrance, H. Asp, and Amos Walton for the defendant. The case occupied the whole day and will come up again this morning.

Friday, May 10th.


State vs. Bilson. Trial continued. This was on the charge of burglary instead of grand larceny, as stated yesterday. The case was argued by counsel and submitted at about noon, when the jury retired and court adjourned for all purposes except to receive the verdict, to Monday morning at 8 o’clock.

Saturday, May 11.

State vs. Bilson. At about 11 o’clock on Saturday evening the jury returned a verdict of burglary in the second degree.

Monday, May 13.

State vs. Wm. Steadman, grand larceny.

County Attorney James McDermott appeared for the state and E. S. Torrance and Henry Asp for Defendant.

The following are the names of the jurors sworn to try the case, after which the court adjourned till eight o’clock this morning, when it will proceed to trial.

Jurors: J. M. Mark, B. B. Vandeventer, S. Elkins, J. Jackson, John M. Gates, T. McGinnis, J. H. Mounts, A. Howard, D. A. Byers, H. C. Catlin, H. C. McDorman, S. Martin, W. W. Thomas, J. W. Miller, A. C. Davis, and W. S. Gilman.

Tuesday, May 14.

State vs. W. H. Bilson. Motion for a new trial heard and overruled.

Notice of a motion in arrest of judgment.

State vs. William Steadman. Trial concluded.

The jury brought in a verdict of guilty of grand larceny.

                                                     Real Estate Transfers.

Winfield Courier, May 23, 1878.

E. S. Torrance and wife to A. H. Green, lot 11, block 165 and lot 11, block 68, Winfield.

Andrew Akin to E. S. Torrance, lots 11 and 12, block 165; lot 11, block 68, Winfield.

                                                   The Page-Webb Tragedy.

Winfield Courier, June 13, 1878.

Various statements in relation to this affair have appeared in the newspapers or been told about the country which have no foundation in fact; but have grown out of the surmises of excited men. Much interest and a desire to learn the facts are manifested.

At the preliminary examination of Webb, the courtroom was well filled, largely with men from the country, and we consider it due to our readers to give them the exact facts as far as possible, and endeavored to do so last week.

We will state that we were not much acquainted with Page and were well acquainted with Webb, feeling for him a personal friendship; but we do not intend that this fact shall color our statements.

Our statement last week that Webb had been taking opium to steady his nerves was doubtless an error. It is denied, and we find no one who knows that he ever took opium.

The statement of the correspondent of the Traveler that Page had won from Webb $100, which Webb had collected for his clients, is in error.

C. C. Black, Webb’s law partner, says that Webb could not possibly have had any money belonging to clients. The statement in some of the papers that Webb had threatened to kill or revenge upon Page seems to be without foundation. No evidence of threats or malice was offered, or was attempted to be offered, at the examination.


If there is any evidence that Page had played cold decks on Webb, drugged him, or drawn pistols on him, it was not produced at the examination. There are many other statements and rumors that cannot be taken as truth, at least not until the case is fully developed at the trial.

                                         THE PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION

took place last week, June 5th and 6th. Capt. McDermott, for the state, evidently endeavored to do his whole duty in an honorable way. Judge Coldwell, E. S. Torrance, N. C. Coldwell, and Judge Webb, the prisoner’s father, were present in the interest of Webb. The hearing was before Justice Boyer in the courthouse. Four witnesses were examined on the part of the state. The following are all the material facts testified.

                                           JESSE HERNDON’S TESTIMONY.

I have been tending bar for Page lately. On the first day of June I was in Page’s saloon. Mr. Page was there. I saw L. J. Webb there; saw him shoot Page. Page was standing at the north end of the bar, front side, leaning against the bar talking to Frank Manny. Webb came into the room at the back door, walked to within about ten feet of Page, took his pistol out of his pocket, and pointed it towards Page. The pistol made a report and I saw the smoke. Page put up his hand to his left breast and said: “See where the son of a b___h has shot me.”

Page walked out of the front door. I did not see Webb do anything after that. He gave his pistol to Mr. Hill. I did not see Mr. Page anymore until about half an hour, when I saw him in the doctor’s office dead. What I have described transpired in Cowley County, Kansas, about 4 o’clock p.m., Saturday, June 1, 1878.

Winfield Courier, July 4, 1878.

                                                      A Threatened Famine.

C. A. Bliss, G. S. Manser, A. B. Lemmon, E. P. Kinne, J. C. Fuller, M. L. Read, T. R. Bryan, W. M. Allison, J. W. Curns, C. C. Black, D. A. Millington, E. S. Bliss, E. S. Torrance, A. E. Baird, J. B. Lynn, M. G. Troup, M. L. Robinson, J. C. McMullen, E. C. Manning, and probably many others, all with their wives, will make a raid upon Arkansas City, the steam boats, and Newman’s dam on the Fourth. They will seize all the provisions they can find in the city, capture both the “Aunt Sally” and the—the—well, Amos’ steamship, will rip out Newman’s dam, and steam up the Walnut to Winfield, driving a large herd of catfish. Bliss and Harter & Harris will load the steamers with flour at their mills. The party will start at about 9 o’clock a.m.

Winfield Courier, July 25, 1878.

E. S. Torrance came across a Jenks of the male persuasion the other day. Torrance was counsel for the defense in the Rock Township cases on trial all last week. An elderly witness in coarse, rude garments and make up, testified to having seen an assault by one of the defendants in the night. Torrance desired, on cross-examination, to show that the night was so dark that the witness could not have positively identified the defendant, and asked:

“What kind of a night was it?”

Witness: “Oh, about so so.”

Torrance: “But how light was it? Was it dark?”

Witness: “Well, about an average of an April night.”

Torrance: “But how dark was it?”

Witness (tragically): “The sun had set behind the western hills. ’Twas night: that is all there was about it.”

This brought down the house and the attorney let the witness go.


Arkansas City Traveler, August 7, 1878.

MESSRS. Hackney and Torrance, Winfield, were in town Thursday.

Arkansas City Traveler, August 7, 1878.

WINFIELD township elected the following delegates to the county convention next Saturday: C. C. Pierce, R. L. Walker, W. P. Hackney, F. S. Jennings, L. W. Spach, E. S. Torrance, O. M. Seward, James Kelley, E. C. Manning, D. A. Millington.

Winfield Courier, August 8, 1878.

                                                         Primary Convention.

                                                  WINFIELD, August 3, 1878.

Convention met at the courthouse in pursuance to call of County Central Committee.

The meeting was called to order by W. Q. Mansfield, and D. A. Millington was elected as chairman and G. H. Buckman secretary.

On motion the chair appointed a committee of three to report names of delegates and alternates. S. M. Jarvis, E. P. Kinne, and W. M. Boyer appointed on such committee.

The committee reported the following named persons as delegates and alternates.

Delegates: R. L. Walker, W. P. Hackney, E. S. Torrance, F. S. Jennings, L. W. Spack, O. M. Seward, James Kelley, E. C. Manning, D. A. Millington.

Alternates: E. P. Kinne, W. M. Boyer, W. Q. Mansfield, G. H. Buckman, S. M. Jarvis, John Mentch, Sampson Johnson, Henry E. Asp, T. B. Myers.

On motion the report of the committee was adopted by the convention. Thereupon the convention adjourned. D. A. MILLINGTON, President. G. H. BUCKMAN, Secretary.

Winfield Courier, August 22, 1878.

                                                                Trial List.

The following is a list of cases that will stand for trial at the August A. D. 1878 term of the District Court of Cowley County, and have been placed on the Trial Docket in the following order.

                          FIRST DAY - CRIMINAL DOCKET. August 26, 1878.

State vs. Leland J. Webb. [James McDermott; E. S. Torrance, Coldwell & Coldwell.]

State vs. Daniel P. Faler. [James McDermott; E. S. Torrance.]

State vs. John W. Blissard. [James McDermott; Hackney & McDonald.]

                                           SECOND DAY - CIVIL DOCKET.

A. H. Green vs. Sarah B. Requa. [Hackney & McDonald; Jas. McDermott and E. S. Torrance.]

Martin L. Wilson vs. George P. Wagner. [Hackney & McDonald; James McDermott and E. S. Torrance.]

Christopher C. Harris vs. J. B. Lynn. [Hackney & McDonald; J. E. Allen and E. S. Torrance.]

                                             CIVIL DOCKET. THIRD DAY.

Ledora A. Powell vs. John Stout. [Hackney & McDonald; Webb & Black and E. S. Torrance.]

                                           CIVIL DOCKET. FOURTH DAY.

J. S. Chick vs. C. W. Mitchell et al. [E. S. Torrance; Hutchings & Denison.]

G. H. McCumber vs. William Storms. [C. H. Eagin; E. S. Torrance.]


James A. Loomis vs. E. B. Kager et al. [James A. Loomis; Hackney & McDonald, Torrance, and Pryor & Pryor.]

                                              CIVIL DOCKET. FIFTH DAY.

John Nichols vs. Harrison Barton. [E. S. Torrance; Jennings & Buckman.]

Cochran, Carroll & Co. vs. Walker Brothers. [E. S. Torrance; Hackney & McDonald.]

J. P. Campbell & Co. vs. Walker Brothers. [E. S. Torrance; Hackney & McDonald.]

City of Winfield vs. Wm. A. Lee. [N. C. Coldwell; E. S. Torrance.]

City of Winfield vs. Dennis Lynch. [N. C. Coldwell; E. S. Torrance.]

Winfield Courier, August 29, 1878.

                                                            District Court.

Met Monday morning, August 26th, 1878.

Present: Judge W. P. Campbell, Sheriff C. L. Harter, Clerk E. S. Bedilion, Attorneys McDermott, Torrance, C. Coldwell, N. C. Coldwell, Hackney, McDonald, Pryor, Pyburn, Allen, Jennings, Buckman, Black, Webb, Alexander, Beach, Troup, Jarvis, Asp, of Winfield; and Dennison, of Osage Mission.

Winfield Courier, September 19, 1878. Front Page.

                                                   [From the Wichita Eagle.]

The attorneys retained for the defense in the Webb trial are Judge W. C. Webb, of Topeka, E. S. Torrance, Coldwell & Coldwell, and C. C. Black, of Winfield, H. G. Webb, of Oswego, James D. Snoddy, of Linn County, and Sluss & Hatton, of this city. The attorneys for the prosecution are James McDermott, the county attorney of Cowley County, assisted by W. E. Stanley, Sedgwick County’s attorney.

Arkansas City Traveler, October 9, 1878.

                                          Republican Nominating Convention.

At the nominating convention held at Winfield last Saturday, E. S. Torrance was nominated for County Attorney, E. S. Bedilion for Clerk of the District Court, R. C. Story for Supt. Public Instruction, J. W. Millspaugh for Probate Judge, and G. L. Gale for Commissioner of the first district. The vote was as follows.

COUNTY ATTORNEY. E. S. Torrance, 51; James McDermott, 23.

PROBATE JUDGE. J. W. Millspaugh, 40; H. D. Gans, 21; P. G. Smith, 10; Joel Mason, 3; S. M. Jarvis, 1. Mr. Jarvis withdrew when his name was first presented. E. S. Bedilion and R. C. Story were declared the choice of the convention by acclamation.

Winfield Courier, October 10, 1878. Editorial Page.

                                           REPUBLICAN COUNTY TICKET.

For Representative—88th District, E. C. Manning.

For Representative—89th District, A. A. Wiley.

For County Attorney, E. S. Torrance.

For Probate Judge, J. W. Millspaugh.

For District Clerk, E. S. Bedilion.

For Superintendent of Public Instruction, R. C. Story.

For County Commissioner—1st District, G. L. Gale.


E. S. Torrance is our candidate for County Attorney. He has before this held the office for two terms, when he was but just entered into his practice of law and was comparatively inexperienced. In the language of Hackney, “He was the best county attorney we ever had or ever will have.” We do not agree with Hackney in the last clause, “ever will have.” Since Torrance left that position he has read, studied, and practiced law tirelessly and incessantly until now he stands at the head of a talented and brilliant bar as a criminal lawyer. . . .

[REPUBLICAN COUNTY TICKET.]

Arkansas City Traveler, October 16, 1878

For Representative, 88th District: E. C. MANNING.

For Representative, 89th District: A. A. WILEY.

For County Attorney: E. S. TORRANCE.

For Probate Judge: J. W. MILLSPAUGH.

For Clerk of District Court: E. S. BEDILION.

For Commissioner, 2nd District: G. L. GALE.

Winfield Courier, October 17, 1878.

                                                     COUNTY ATTORNEY.

Ever since John E. Allen has been in this county he has been a Republican of the ultra stripe and a probable candidate of that party for county attorney. He tells us that he never was a hard money Republican. We don’t know what he calls a hard money man, but he was but recently opposing the greenback movement and offering to discuss before the people the finance questions against Payson and Coldwell. Now, so far as we have been able to discover, Payson and Coldwell are not fiat greenbackers, nor in favor of issuing enough greenbacks to pay off the national debt, so that any Republican who wishes to take issue with their greenback doctrine could not be a very soft money man. He has made many speeches and the “bloody shirt” has always been his stock argument. But shortly before the Republican convention, it became apparent that Torrance, and not Allen, would get the Republican nomination for county attorney and from that time it became apparent that Allen was under conviction. He was immediately converted to the fiat extreme of the finance question, became very hostile to the “bloody shirt” argument, and joined the greenback club. He suddenly became a bitter opponent of the Republican party, discovering that it was rotten and corrupt, the Democrats had never done anything wrong, and became a full fledged fiatist. Here was Chas. H. Payson, an attorney every way his equal, and in many ways his superior, a young man of bright promise. Industrious and honorable, but not like Allen a capitalist or bloated bondholder, who is loaning money at 26 percent; a man who had spent his energies, time, and money for most of the past year in traveling over the country making greenback speeches and organizing the National party, working in storm and shine, and laying on the prairie of nights; a man whom the young party, the Nationals who are such for principle and not for spoils, would have delighted to honor with the nomination of county attorney; such a man is rudely assaulted in convention of his friends, called a dead beat by Allison and set aside by a corrupt ring with a cut and dried ticket sprung upon the convention and carried by a trick of such unblushing effrontery as would put to blush the heathen Chinee with his twenty-four jacks. Will the real greenbackers at the clubs that Payson and Coldwell have helped to form under adverse circumstances, support this ring by voting for Allen while he is now hurrying into the Democratic camp?

Winfield Courier, October 31, 1878.


We have just heard that Allison and his friends are circulating the story in some portions of the county that, when Mr. Torrance procured a writ of mandamus from Judge Campbell directing the county treasurer to issue personal property tax warrants against delinquent tax-payers, he was employed by Sheriff Parker for that purpose. This is not true. The facts are these: Complaint was made to Mr. Torrance by a number of tax-payers who had paid their personal property tax that many of the delinquent tax-payers were leaving the county with their property, so that the county was thereby losing their tax. The statute required the county treasurer to issue the tax warrants on or before the 10th day of January. Mr. Kager had neglected to issue them, and although Mr. Torrance informed him that the county was losing hundreds of dollars of tax on that account, he said he would not issue them until the next spring. This was not fair to those who had paid their taxes, and by such a course the county would have lost a large amount of taxes. Mr. Torrance then applied to Judge Campbell for a writ of mandamus, as it was his bounden duty to do, and he issued one compelling Mr. Kager to issue the tax warrants. In so doing Mr. Torrance acted purely for the interests of the county.

Arkansas City Traveler, October 31, 1878.

A Republican meeting will be held at Bland’s schoolhouse on this Wednesday evening. Hon. W. P. Hackney and E. S. Torrance will address the people. Everybody invited, especially Greenbackers. Both gentlemen are good speakers and there will be fun aboard when Bill Hackney gets after them.

Winfield Courier, October 31, 1878.

Having been informed that Will M. Allison has been making charges against E. S. Torrance, the Republican candidate for county attorney of Cowley County, in reference to his connection while formerly county attorney of Cowley County with the allowance of a salary of $500 to T. H. Johnson, then probate judge of said county, and the allowance of damages to said Johnson on account of the laying out of a road on his premises, I desire to make the following statement.

At the time the salary and damages were allowed to Mr. Johnson, O. C. Smith, Frank Cox, and myself constituted the Board of County Commissioners of said county. Mr. Smith has since died and Mr. Cox has removed from this state. I was present at the sessions of the county board at which the salary and damages aforesaid were allowed. In relation to the salary, Mr. Torrance advised the board that, under the law, it was in their discretion whether they should allow a salary to Mr. Johnson for his services as probate judge, and that if they saw fit to allow such salary, it could in no event exceed $500. Mr. Torrance had nothing to do with the allowance of his salary, and if any blame is to be attached to anyone on account of the allowance of the salary, it should fall on the board and not on Mr. Torrance.

In relation to the road damages, the board allowed Mr. Johnson what they thought was right, and Mr. Torrance had nothing to do with the matter whatever, except to advise the board that, under the law, they should allow such damages as in their judgment they thought just and reasonable. J. D. MAURER.

Winfield Courier, October 31, 1878.

                                               WINFIELD, October 28, 1878.


EDITOR COURIER: Allison, in his paper of last week, devotes some space to me as the Republican candidate for county attorney, and closes by asking me five questions. I have furnished him brief answers to these questions for his paper this week, but lest he may adhere to the tactics he has started out on, and not publish my answers, I ask the privilege of a hearing through your columns.

Allison’s hostility toward me has been of long standing, growing out of the fact that he failed to get the county printing from the county board when I was county attorney. He claimed that my advice to the board concerning the law was what defeated him. When he says that he made attacks upon me through his paper before he made a bid for the county printing, he states an untruth.

Every unprejudiced person who attended the late Greenback county convention and heard Allison’s harangues there in relation to whom he wanted for county attorney will be satisfied that his grudge toward me arose out of the matter of county printing. His imputation that I have been trying to patch up my official record in advance of his charges is a fitting innuendo from his libelous pen, since, from the moment of my nomination, he has been busy retailing false charges against me.

The first three questions he asks he puts in the form of charges against me at a meeting at New Salem, and when Mr. Asp, who was present, asked him if he had any more charges to make against me, and if so, to make them then so that I could reply before the election, Allison said he had, but did not propose to exhibit his powder and shot in advance. He closes the article in his paper with the statement that when these questions are answered he shall propound more in next week’s issue, well knowing that it will be impossible for me to reply to them before the election.

Unless Allison is a true exponent of his party, which I do not believe, his manner of conducting the campaign against me will not be approved by his party, and will be considered worse than bush-whacking by every fair minded person.

And now I will answer his questions in their order.

1st. I was not guilty of a back salary grab in 1872 or in any other year, nor did I ever receive a cent from the county that I was not justly and legally entitled to. I was county attorney from January 1871 to January 1875. Under the law the county board had to fix the salary of county attorney, the amount depending upon the population of the county on the first of March of each year, to be ascertained by the returns of the township assessors, to be made by July 1st, and the board could not legally determine the population until their July session. The board at their July session in July, 1871, fixed the salary of county attorney for that year at $450, and I received that amount in the scrip of the county. At the July session for 1872 the population was such that the county board legally fixed the salary for that year at $1,000, and I received that amount in county scrip worth sixty to seventy cents on the dollar.

2nd. The only part which I had in the allowance of a salary to T. H. Johnson, Probate Judge, was to advise the board that it was in their discretion whether to allow him a salary at all or not, and that in any extent it could not exceed $500. That opinion was correct. The board did allow $500, and this violated no law.

3rd. In relation to the road damages allowed Mr. Johnson, all I had to do with it was to advise the board that it should allow such damages as were just and reasonable.


4th. I never advised the Board of County Commissioners in 1873, or at any other time, that it had a right to grant a whiskey license on the same petition upon which a license had been granted the year before, and, having never given such advice, I of course never received any money on account of such advice; nor did I ever receive, nor was I ever offered, a cent, or any sum of money or valuable thing, to do or forbear to do any official act during the four years that I was county attorney.

5th. John B. Fairbanks, A. H. Green, and myself at one time were associated together in the civil practice of the law only. During that time I prosecuted a man by the name of James Stewart on the charge of being implicated in the shooting of a deputy U. S. Marshal on Grouse Creek. Stewart was defended in court by W. P. Hackney and Messrs. Putman & Case, of Topeka, and Mr. Green was in some way connected with the defense, but did not take any active part in the trial of the case. Whether Mr. Green offered Stewart any such inducement to secure his employment as Mr. Allison insinuates, I have no personal knowledge, nor do I care. Mr. Green says he did not, which settles the question in my mind that Mr. Allison lies on that score. This much I do know, that, although Stewart was defended by as good lawyers as the State afforded, the only favor I showed him was to procure his conviction and have him sentenced to the state penitentiary.

I have been informed that Mr. Allison, at a meeting at Beck’s schoolhouse, in Ninnescah Township, on last Saturday night, said that I had been given a yoke of cattle for loosely prosecuting a case in Beaver Township in which two men had been arrested on a charge of bringing Texas cattle into that township. That charge is absolutely false.

Mr. E. B. Johnson was the prosecuting witness in that case. I told Mr. Johnson after he had these men arrested and before the commencement of the trial before the justice of the peace that I believed the statute under which they were held was in contravention of the constitution of the United States, and that they would finally be discharged on that account. Mr. Johnson insisted however on testing that question, and as the county could in no event be liable for the costs, I proceeded with the trial before the justice and a jury. One of the defendants was acquitted because proof could not be obtained that he had any connection with bringing the cattle into the county. The other was convicted and he appealed to the district court, and was there discharged on the ground that the statute was unconstitutional.

It is perhaps a matter of general information that a short time ago the Supreme Court of the United States decided that a similar statute of the State of Missouri conflicted with the constitution of the United States, and on that account was null and void.

These comprise the batch of lies that Mr. Allison, so far as I am advised, has thus far charged against me in this campaign. If he didn’t lie in the last week’s issue of his paper, he intends to publish a new string of falsehoods in the last issue of his paper before the day of election.

In conclusion I have to say that any charges he may make affecting my honesty or integrity as county attorney of this county will be absolutely false; that whatever my ability may have been when acting as county attorney, I honestly and conscientiously endeavored to discharge the duties that the office devolved upon me. E. S. TORRANCE.

Arkansas City Traveler, November 6, 1878.


In Cresswell Township the Republican State ticket received 155 votes, except Ryan, who had 164. The county ticket: Wiley, 101; Story, 161; Torrance, 135; Millspaugh, 127; Bedilion, 163. The Democratic ticket received an average of 65 votes. The Greenback ticket received 24 votes.

Winfield Courier, November 7, 1878. Editorial Page.

                                                               VICTORY!

                                                 BRING OUT THE BIG GUN

                                                          The Fusion Busted.

                                                    Manning Goes to Topeka!

                 The Allison Jackson Ring Split Wide Open—Torrance County Attorney!

                         Gale, Bedilion, and Story are to Continue to Serve the People!

                  The Republican State Ticket Gets a Large Majority Over all Opposition!

                                 The Fiat Goose is Dead—Never to be Resurrected!

                                                                     

Returns have not come in as was expected and as we go to press we are only able to announce the vote of this county as stated in the accompanying table. [SKIPPED TABLE.]  Manning is elected by 108 majority over the fusion candidate, and the whole Republican ticket, with the exception of Millspaugh, and possibly Wiley, are elected over the fusion nominees by good majorities. . . .

[ATTORNEYS’ CARDS.]

Winfield Courier, Thursday, November 14, 1878. Front page.

E. S. TORRANCE, ATTORNEY AT LAW. OFFICE UPSTAIRS, IN MANNING’S BRICK BLOCK, WINFIELD, KANSAS.

Winfield Courier, December 5, 1878.

                                                            District Court.

Judge Campbell came down from Wichita on Monday and the session of court commenced.

Present: His Honor Judge W. P. Campbell; C. L. Harter, sheriff; E. S. Bedilion, district clerk; J. McDermott, county attorney; and Messrs. J. E. Allen, C. C. Black, S. D. Pryor, A. J. Pyburn, J. M. Alexander, F. S. Jennings, C. R. Mitchell, L. J. Webb, E. S. Torrance, N. C. Coldwell, W. M. Boyer, W. P. Hackney, O. M. Seward, C. H. Payson, H. E. Asp, G. H. Buckman, J. D. Pryor, D. C. Beach, W. M. Boyer, C. Coldwell, M. G. Troup, S. M. Jarvis, A. H. Green, attorneys.

Winfield Courier, January 2, 1879.

Listed as a Courier Advertiser:

TORRANCE, E. S., has achieved an enviable reputation as a lawyer, and has acquired a legal practice second to few in the State. He held the office of county attorney of this county for four years, from 1871 to 1875, and gave such satisfaction that the people have thrust upon him the same office for two years to come.

E. S. TORRANCE, ATTORNEY AT LAW. OFFICE UPSTAIRS, IN MANNING’S BRICK BLOCK, WINFIELD, KANSAS.

Winfield Courier, February 13, 1879.

E. S. Torrance has lately received a large addition to his law library.

Winfield Courier, February 20, 1879.


The case of the State vs. Charley Birnbaum for larceny came before Squire Buckman last Monday, County Attorney E. S. Torrance appearing for the State and Messrs. Payson and Jarvis for defen­dant. The case was ably conducted on both sides. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and the property valued at $8.00. He was fined $5 and costs.

Winfield Courier, March 6, 1879.

                             FRANCIS SMALL MURDERS J. E. STARBUCK.

                                                    The Starbuck Homicide.

Last Thursday the preliminary examination of Francis Small for the murder of J. E. Starbuck, and of A. J. Thomas, A. L. Thomas, John Perry, and Wm. Morrow; charged as abettors and accessories to the murder, was commenced and continued the rest of the week.

The most important witness was a boy, Reuben Starbuck, son of the murdered man. His testimony was simple, straightforward, and bore the impress of truth.

He said substantially that on the morning of February 20th, Starbuck was in the corn field loading into his wagon corn that had been husked by Small, Perry, and Morrow; that these latter were in the field husking; that Small came up to Starbuck and pushed him; that Starbuck pushed back, and drawing a revolver, told Small to walk. Small said he would walk, and threatened arrest. Small, Perry, and Morrow then went away.

The pistol Starbuck had was a revolver, which he got at his nephew’s west of Winfield the Saturday before.

In about two hours Small, Perry, Morrow, A. J. Thomas, and A. L. Thomas came into the field, riding in a wagon. When they got near where Starbuck then was, husking corn and throwing it into his wagon, they stopped. A. L. Thomas jumped out first, Small got out next with a double-barreled shotgun; Morrow got out and went to husking corn; and Perry tied up the lines and got out. Starbuck’s mules started and Starbuck went and stopped them, then continued husking corn. Small told him to stop, but Starbuck kept on husking. Small drew up and shot him. Starbuck, when shot, had an ear of corn husked just ready to break off. He fell forward on his left side and did not speak. A. L. Thomas then went to Starbuck’s wagon and took a revolver out of Starbuck’s coat pocket, which was in the wagon. The Thomases, Morrow, and Perry then went to shucking corn while the dead body of Starbuck remained on the ground. Small went away toward Morrow’s house. The witness went to the house and returned with his mother. The men were still shucking corn and the corpse still lay there.

Oliver Whitted confirmed this account of the first interview of that morning.

The widow of the deceased testified, but nothing new of importance was elicited.

A. J. Crum testified that Small had previously talked of mobbing Starbuck, and that Small, Perry, Morrow, and Al. Thomas are brothers-in-law, and that Ab. Thomas is a brother of Al.

Charles Thomas testified that Small came to A. J. Thomas’ on that morning and got the double-barreled shotgun, came riding a pony on the run. Ab. said Starbuck had drawn a revolver on Small, but they would not need any revolvers. Thomas said “if he got in them loads, he would need no revolver, for he had loaded them for Jake’s boys. They were good ones—powder, greased wads, and a handful of shot.” Al. said Small was going to shoot Starbuck; said he would shoot any man that cocked a revolver in his face. Small left on the pony with the gun, and Ab. and Al. Thomas followed him in about half an hour.


Dr. Rising testified that death was caused by 79 shot or more, which, within a circle of three and a half inches, entered Starbuck’s left breast, and he thought the direction of the shot was a little downward.

Dr. Wright’s testimony was similar.

THE DEFENSE offered their own testimony.

Wm. Morrow testified to the effect that he had endeavored to preserve the peace, and went to the field on the promise that there should be no fuss. When they drove into the field, Starbuck rushed to his wagon for his revolver, and was reaching in when Small shot him; did not see a revolver, and said that Small had been rather insane three times before.

John Perry testified like Morrow, only he saw a revolver lying on a coat in a bucket in the wagon; saw Starbuck get it in his hand, and was raising it when Small shot him. He did not testify of Small’s former wildness.

Ab. Thomas denied the conversation Charles testified of, but gave other conversation damaging to Small. He, too, said he saw the revolver in the bucket on the coat, and that Small shot just as Starbuck got the revolver in his hand.

A. J. Thomas testified the same way.

In rebuttal the State offered the following.

Dr. Graham testified that a person when shot through the heart would grasp, not lose, anything then held in the hand.

Justice Buckman then recognized the witness to appear and testify at the next term of court, and the case was argued by E. S. Torrance, county attorney, for the prosecution and J. Wade McDonald for the defense.

The court considered the evidence insufficient to hold the defendants, Al. and Ab. Thomas, Perry, and Morrow as accomplices, but bound Small over in $5,000 for his appearance at the next term of court. He was remanded to jail, to remain until the bail is furnished.

Winfield Courier, March 20, 1879.

                          NOTICE: SPECIAL RAILROAD BOND ELECTION.

Whereas, the county commissioners of the county of Cowley, State of Kansas, at a special meeting, held March 10th, 1879, made an order of which the following is a copy.

“At a special meeting of the county commissioners of Cowley County, holden at the office of the county clerk in the court­house in the City of Winfield in said county on the 10th day of March A. D. 1879, there were present: R. F. Burden, Chairman; W. M. Sleeth and Geo. L. Gale, Commissioners; with E. S. Torrance, County Attorney, and M. G. Troup, County Clerk; a petition was presented to the Board, signed by two-fifths of the resident taxpayers of said county which, with the signatures omitted is as follows: to wit:

“To the Honorable the Board of County Commissioners of the county of Cowley and State of Kansas:


“Inasmuch as the Southern Kansas and Western Railroad Company proposes to construct a line of railroad into and through the county of Cowley, in the State of Kansas, the undersigned, being more than two-fifths of the resident tax payers of said county, respectfully petition your Honorable Board to call a special election in said county at as early a day as is practica­ble, and legal, and at such special election to submit to the qualified electors of said county, a proposition to subscribe 68 thousand (68,000) dollars to the capital stock of said Southern Kansas and Western Railroad Company, a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Kansas, and to issue the bonds of said county in the like amount of sixty-eight thousand (68,000) dollars, in payment of said subscriptions, said bonds to be delivered to said railroad company for like amounts of the capital stock thereof as follows: Fifty-one thousand (51,000) dollars when said railroad is in operation to the point herein after named, near the city of Winfield in said county, and the remaining seventeen thousand (17,000) dollars when the said railroad is in operation to the western line of said county.

THIS GOES ON AND ON...SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS OUTLINED TO BEGIN WITH...MAIN THING: SPECIAL ELECTION: TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1879.

ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT EDITIONS, THUS FAR...SHOWS PICTURES OR SKETCHES OF SOME OF THE BUILDINGS: READ’S BANK, WINFIELD; THE “AUNT SALLY;” ARKANSAS CITY SCHOOL BUILDING; COURT HOUSE AT WINFIELD; AND LATEST REVISED MAP OF COWLEY COUNTY ON FRONT PAGE.

Winfield Courier, April 17, 1879.

On last Thursday one David Creak was arrested and charged with having stolen a cow from Mr. Wm. Hawkins, who lives five miles south of town. Mr. Hawkins missed the cow early Thursday morning, and upon investigation found tracks in some plowed ground between the corral and the road which led him to believe that his cow had been stolen, whereupon he came to town and found Creak trying to sell the cow to George Miller. County Attorney Torrance being out of town, Mr. Henry Asp made out the papers and in less then two hours, Mr. Creak was languishing in the “cooler” in default of $500 bail.

Winfield Courier, April 24, 1879.

Messrs. Hackney & McDonald and E. S. Torrance have received another lot of choice law books which is quite an addition to their already valuable libraries.

Winfield Courier, May 1, 1879.

Daniel Venator is held “in durance vile” for obtaining a note under false pretenses. Information filed in the district court by Mr. Torrance.

[DISTRICT COURT.]

Winfield Courier, May 8, 1879.

The court commenced its session on Monday. His Honor W. P. Campbell presiding. Present: E. S. Bedilion, clerk; C. L. Harter, sheriff; E. S. Torrance, prosecuting attorney, and a full corps of local attorneys.

The docket was called and several cases were disposed of as follows: State vs. Creek. The defendant plead guilty to three indictments for cow stealing. He was returned to the jail to await his sentence.

                                                               TUESDAY.

State vs. Small, murder, set for Thursday.


State vs. Gibson, rape and incest. Trial commenced, and the testimony showed that the victim’s name was Manda instead of Amanda, as stated in the information. The court refused leave to amend the information at that stage, and the county attorney entered a “nolle,” the prisoner was held to await his action, a new information was made, and a new preliminary examination before Justice Buckman, and he was committed again for trial at this term of the court.

State against Frank Manny, shooting of James Kelly. Trial commenced and the testimony of James Kelly was in progress when the court adjourned for the day.

[DISTRICT COURT: SMALL TRIAL; THE VERDICT.]

Winfield Courier, May 22, 1879.

Saturday morning at 4 o’clock ended the argument in the most closely contested case ever tried in Cowley county. When we went to press last week, the trial of Francis Small for the murder of Jacob Starbuck had reached the examination of Oliver Whitted.

The cross examination of Oliver Whitted was long and search­ing, and considering the powerful effort of counsel for defense to break him down, he did very well.

The next witness called was Wm. Whitted, the father of Oliver. He said he knew the defendant, and had known Starbuck in his life time. Remembered the circumstance of Starbuck’s death; was at my house on the morning of the day of his death; saw him afterwards in his field and saw Small go towards him and then saw the stalks rustling. I said to my wife that I thought they were having a fight. (Witness used a diagram of the field and ex­plained the position of the parties.)  Saw Small go back to his wagon; he was putting on his coat as he went along. The cross-examination brought out nothing new.

Reuben Starbuck was next called. Reuby is a bright, intel­ligent little fellow, and told his story with a child’s charac­teristic simplicity. He said Jacob Starbuck was my father; was in the field with him when Mr. Small first came down there. Perry and Morrow were with him, and they were picking up corn.

When we got pretty close together Small came over to pa’s team and told pa to get out of the field. Pa said he was going to have his corn. Small pulled off his overwaist and walked up towards Pa. Pa pulled out his pistol and told him to leave or he would blow the daylights out of him. He then went over to where Perry and Morrow were; saw Small again that day. He came back to the field with Al. Thomas, Ab. Thomas, Morrow, and Perry. They all came from Morrow’s house. Al. Thomas got out of their wagon and came over to speak to Pa. Pa was husking corn on the second row from the wagon. Small, Al. and Ab. Thomas jumped out of their wagon. Perry was in the wagon tying up the lines. Small told Pa to stop husking corn. Pa did not answer him—just kept on husking, and Small shot him. Pa fell down when he was shot; he fell away from the wagon on his face. He did not say anything, he only groaned. Small put his gun in his wagon and started off on a run. Pa’s coat was in a bucket in the front end of our wagon and his revolver was in an inside pocket in the coat. Al. Thomas took the revolver out of Pa’s pocket and said it was a seven-shooter. I drove the team to the house, and Ma and I went back to the field where Pa was lying. Small had left the field. Pa had a peg on his hand and was husking corn when Small shot him. I took the peg off his hand when Ma and I went over there.

Joshua Powers saw Small going over to Ab. Thomas’. Witness said as he passed Morrow’s place, where Small was living, he saw Mrs. Morrow. She had been crying, and said to him, “Mr. Powers, there will be trouble this morning.”


Charles Thomas testified that he was at Al. Thomas’ the morning of the shooting. Saw Small coming very fast on horse­back. Small got a shotgun. I asked Al. what was up. He said Starbuck had drawn a revolver on Small that morning, and that Small was going to shoot him. Small called to a little boy and told him he need not get these revolvers, as he had the gun. Al. said, “No, if you shoot him with those loads, he will never squeal but once.” Small got on his pony and said, “It’s Starbuck’s time to run now.” Al. said the loads in the gun were good ones, that he had loaded it for Jake’s boy.

Mrs. Starbuck said Small came to their house and asked her husband to pay him some money. Starbuck told him he shouldn’t lose it, but that he could not pay him then. Small got mad and went out saying, “There will be some other way of settling it.”

Miss Annie Starbuck went down to the field and saw Reuby take off the husking peg from her father’s hand.

Dr. Robert A. Rising saw Starbuck’s body soon after the shooting. Mr. Krum and I went to the field together. Ab. and A. Thomas were there. Starbuck was lying with his head towards the north and was on his left side. His left arm was under his body. (The doctor made a diagram showing position of wagon track and tracks made by Starbuck, and showing his body across the third row of corn north of the wagon track.)

Starbuck was dead when I first came up to him. An ear of corn was found immediately under his left hand. There was a little blood on it. The wound was just behind the left nipple, covering a space of some four and three-quarter inches. The wound was right over the heart and could not have been other than fatal.

Dr. W. F. Wright made an examination of Starbuck’s body in company with Dr. Rising. Testimony same in substance as Dr. Rising’s.

A. J. Crum said he saw Starbuck’s body about 8 o’clock after the shooting. It was lying on the left side with the left arm under the body. The wagon track was one and one-half rows of corn south of Starbuck’s feet.

Ephraim Rockwell said the wagon track south of where the body had laid was about 8 feet from the center of the body. Dr. Rising stepped the distance and it was two steps and a part of another.

The State rested.

John Perry’s deposition was read for the defense. Witness. Small and Perry went down to Starbuck’s field to get some corn. While at work Starbuck came down. Small went over to him to ask what he meant: heard Starbuck reply, “By G__d, it means busi­ness.” Starbuck drew his pistol and said to Small, “Now you walk.” Morrow and I told him to arrest Starbuck and Small said he would. Small wanted two loads of corn to get some building material. They all went back to Morrows and Small had got a shotgun. We saw Starbuck at his house out of the field and thought we could get the other load, and that Small could then come to town and arrest Starbuck. Small took the gun, saying he did not want to go back without anything to defend himself with. Going down to the field they all saw Starbuck returning. They held a consultation, and finally Al. Thomas said he would go down and see Starbuck, as they had always been friendly; thought he could arrange things. Al. then went over; did not hear what was said, but supposed everything was all right. Morrow and Small got out and went to husking corn. Heard Al. say to Starbuck, “For God’s sake, don’t,” and Starbuck say, “D__n him.” Starbuck rushed forward and they all saw him get his revolver. Small then reached and got his gun. Starbuck raised his revolver a little and Small fired.

William Morrow testified the same as Perry substantially.


Ab. Thomas testified same as last two witnesses. He denied telling Charley Thomas that the gun Small got was loaded by him for Jake’s boy, but admitted on cross-examination that it was a fact; said Small came to his house and got the gun.

Al. Thomas corroborated the testimony of the last three witnesses from first to last.

W. H. Clay, Preston, Martin, J. W. Thomas, Jacob Berkhart, James Jackson, George Whitted, and R. H. Morrow gave Small general reputation as a peaceable, quiet, law-abiding citizen. They all said it was good.

Francis Small told the same story that was told by the last named witnesses, and claimed that Starbuck had wronged him and cheated him out of his farm by giving him a worthless note for it, representing that it was good.

This is in brief an outline of the evidence given in the case.

The argument of the case occupied all of Friday night, Mr. Torrance closing his speech at 4 o’clock in the morning.

The charge given to the jury was remarkably clear and reflected the highest credit upon Judge Campbell.

Henry Asp opened the argument. He occupied one hour and fifteen minutes. He made his points well and presented his theory of the affair very forcibly. This was Henry’s first talk to a jury in the District Court, and he made a splendid effort.

Mr. Hackney made an excellent speech. It was the finest effort thus far in Will’s professional life. The same may be said of Judge McDonald’s argument, while Torrance simply did nobly. The arguments of all the gentlemen were first class. A gentleman outside said, “When Asp made his speech, it looked plain that Small was guilty of a cold-blooded murder; when Hackney had finished, he thought it was awful doubtful; by the time McDonald had finished, he thought Small ought to be acquit­ted. But Torrance began to make the thing look dark again for Small, and before he closed his talk he made up his mind again that Small was guilty as h__l.”

The jury came in Saturday evening with a verdict of guilty of manslaughter in the second degree.

Motion for a new trial was overruled. Judge Campbell reviewed the testimony and made his criticisms freely and plain­ly. His review was remarkable. He said the defendant ought to have been convicted of murder in the first degree, and declined to entertain the plea of clemency interposed by Judge McDonald for the defendant. He sentenced Small to confinement at hard labor in the penitentiary for the longest term that he could under the verdict—five years.

Winfield Courier, June 5, 1879.

County Attorney Torrance has purchased a new book case and now his splendid library is encased behind fourteen square feet of plate glass.

Torrance’s brother, E. W., visits from Missouri...

Winfield Courier, July 3, 1879.

Mr. E. W. Torrance, of Brookfield, Missouri, brother of our county attorney, is visiting in Winfield.

Winfield Courier, August 14, 1879.


Mr. E. S. Torrance, county attorney of Cowley County, was in the city on Tuesday, assisting in the case of the State of Kansas vs. S. M. Lemoine. Mr. Torrance was attorney for the state and made an able effort.—Douglas Enterprise.

[DISTRICT COURT CALENDAR - AUGUST TERM.]

Winfield Courier, August 21, 1879.

FIRST DAY - CRIMINAL DOCKET. [STATE OF KANSAS VERSUS _______.]

STATE ATTORNEY: E. S. TORRANCE.

DEFENDANT                                                            LAWYER(S)

Chas D. Daniels                                                         Hackney & McDonald

Dan’l. Venator                                                           C. H. Payson

Thos. Gibson                                                              J. McDermott

Jno. Punkard

James Powers

Isaac White

George Paris                                                              Hackney & McDonald

                                           SECOND DAY - CIVIL DOCKET.

C. C. Harris                                                                 Hackney & McDonald

     vs.

J. B. Lynn                                                                     Allen and Torrance

                                             CIVIL DOCKET. THIRD DAY.

G. W. Bull                                                                    E. S. Torrance

     vs.

Joel E. Mack                                                                Hackney & McDonald

Richard L. Walker                                                        Coldwell & Coldwell, Webb

     vs.

Charles L. Harter                                                          Hackney & McDonald and          

                                                                                         Torrance.

C. L. Harter                                                                 C. H. Payson.

     vs.

County Commissioners.                                                E. S. Torrance.

NOTE: THERE WERE FOUR CASES LISTED FOR CHARLES L. HARTER VERSUS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

                                           CIVIL DOCKET. FOURTH DAY.

W. M. Boyer                                                                C. H. Payson

    vs.

County Commissioners.                                                E. S. Torrance.

NOTE: THERE WERE FOUR CASES LISTED FOR W. M. BOYER VERSUS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

H. P. Mansfield                                                            Torrance & Asp

     vs.

Est. W. Q. Mansfield                                                    McDermott, Alexander.

                                              CIVIL DOCKET. FIFTH DAY.

J. A. Myton                                                                  Torrance, Alexander.

     vs.


S. H. Myton                                                                 Hackney & McDonald

Thos. S. Parvin                                                             Torrance & Asp

     vs.

James C. Topliff                                                           Hackney & McDonald

Mercy M. Funk                                                            Hackney & McDonald

     vs.

Nancy Hager, et. al.                                                      E. S. Torrance

J. A. Myton                                                                  Alexander, Torrance.

     vs.

H. Brotherton                                                               Hackney & McDonald

Robert Hudson                                                             Torrance & Asp.

    vs.

Francis R. Hudson

                                              CIVIL DOCKET. SIXTH DAY.

C. C. Harris                                                                 Hackney & McDonald

     vs.

Barney Shriver                                                              E. S. Torrance

F. C. Wise                                                                   E. S. Torrance

     vs.

Cyrenus Castanian                                                        Jennings & Buckman

J. W. Hamilton                                                             C. H. Payson

     vs.

Sophia V. French                                                         Christian, Torrance

                                          CIVIL DOCKET. SEVENTH DAY.

Aleena Parsons, et. al.                                                  E. S. Torrance

     vs.

John Brooks                                                                 J. M. Alexander

M. L. Read                                                                  Hackney & McDonald

     vs.

W. W. Brown                                                              E. S. Torrance

S. M. Martin                                                                Hackney & McDonald

     vs.

J. C. McMullen                                                            E. S. Torrance

                                            CIVIL DOCKET. EIGHTH DAY. 

J. C. Phillips                                                                 Torrance & Asp

     vs.

Phillip Stout                                                                  Hackney & McDonald

                                             CIVIL DOCKET. NINTH DAY.

William Storms                                                             Torrance & Asp

     vs.

G. S. Story

                                             CIVIL DOCKET. TENTH DAY.

Carson, Peoria & Co.                                                   Torrance & Asp


     vs.

John W. Johnston                                                         L. J. Webb

In the matter of the survey of                                         Hackney & McDonald

  section 28, township 32, range 5.

Lewis C. Harter

     vs.

W. L. Mullen    E. S. Torrance

Arkansas City Traveler, October 29, 1879.

                                         WINFIELD, KANSAS, Oct. 27, 1879.

EDITOR TRAVELER:

In response to your request that I should furnish you an opinion for publication regarding the legal right of U. S. soldiers stationed in the county, and persons employed in the construction of the railroads now being built through the county, to vote at the approaching election for county officers, I take pleasure in replying as follows.

1. A U. S. soldier cannot be given a residence in this State by being stationed within its limits, so as thereby to give him the right to vote.

2. A person should be allowed to vote when he is either a native or naturalized citizen of the U. S., or has declared his intention to become a citizen, conformably to the laws of the United States on the subject of naturalization, and has resided in this state for six months next preceding the election, and in the township or ward in which he offers to vote at least thirty days next preceding the election.

The term “residence” does not merely mean the presence of a person in the State, township, or ward for the length of time mentioned in the statute. In order to acquire a residence which will entitle one to vote, he must have permanently resided in the State, and have been an actual resident of the township or ward, for the period required by the statute, having come there for the purpose of making it his home, and not for a temporary purpose only.

If a person has come into the county on business, or for the purpose of doing a job of work, with the intention of leaving the county when such business or work is completed, he has not gained such a residence as the statute contemplates. The mere fact that a man has his family with him does not entitle him to vote, unless he has acquired such a residence as I have above indicated.

The argument, so often pressed, that if a person is not allowed to vote at the place where he offers to vote, he will lose his vote altogether, is without any weight. The only question is, whether he has the right to vote here under the laws of this State.

It is the duty of every judge of election to challenge any person offering to vote, whom he shall know or suspect not to be a qualified elector.

The taking of the statutory oath, to the effect that a person is a legal voter, does not entitle him to vote, if he is in fact not a legal voter; and if the judges suspect that such a person is not a legal voter, they are authorized to administer oaths to witness and inquire into the legal qualifications of the person offering to vote. If satisfied that he has no right to vote, they ought to reject his vote, notwithstanding he has taken the statutory oath.


If the expression of the foregoing opinion shall have any influence in the suppression of illegal voters, if any be of­fered, at the coming election in this county, I shall be richly repaid for the time consumed in writing it. Very Truly, E. S. TORRANCE, County Attorney.

Winfield Courier, December 25, 1879.

E. S. Torrance and E. C. Manning are in New Mexico buying up the mines and railroads.

Winfield Courier, January 1, 1880.

E. S. Torrance returned from his New Mexico trip last week.

[ISAAC J. HENRY: NORTH END MEAT MARKET CASE.]

Winfield Courier, January 15, 1880.

The District Court convened on Tuesday. Judge Campbell was detained at Wichita to finish up a criminal case on trial in that city, and had not arrived, therefore, the members of the bar elected J. Wade McDonald, Judge pro tem., who proceeded to try the case of the State vs. Isaac J. Henry, known as the North End Meat Market case. Torrance appeared for the prosecution and C. H. Payson for the defense. The case was ably conducted and resulted in the acquittal of the defendant. Mr. Payson’s plea before the jury is spoken of as a very able argument and one of the finest oratorical efforts that have been presented in our courts.

[DISTRICT COURT.]

Winfield Courier, January 22, 1880.

The court has been occupied for most of the past week in the trial of Shock for the assault with dangerous weapon on Foster. J. Wade McDonald has occupied the bench, Torrance has managed the prosecution, and W. W. Perkins the defense. The testimony closed Saturday night. On Monday Judge McDonald gave a long and able charge to the jury and Torrance opened the argument for the prosecution, closing a very able effort with the session for the day. Tuesday the argument for the defense was given by W. W. Perkins, and was a powerful forensic effort.

The case was submitted to the jury on Tuesday and on Wednes­day morning they brought in a verdict of guilty of assault with intent to kill. This will subject Shock to a sentence of impris­onment for a term not exceeding seven years.

[MANZANARES MINING COMPANY.]

Winfield Courier, January 29, 1880.

Col. W. P. McClure, in a letter to the Commonwealth, says:

“The Manzanares Mining Company was organized a few weeks ago. It consists of the following gentlemen: Col. T. B. Mills, Col. McClure, E. F. Beecher, Col. E. C. Manning, E. S. Torrance, A. M. Coddington, Dr. A. G. Lane, Joel Huntoon, F. A. Manzanares, A. O. Robbins, John H. Mills, I. Gist, Capt. L. C. Fort, and N. L. Rosenthral.

“Col. Mills has returned from their mining district near La Jova, in the mountains of the same name, bringing some of the finest specimens that it has yet been our privilege to see. The mines staked off and held by this company are rich in silver, copper, and lead. Capt. Fort returns at once and Col. Mills will follow the latter part of the week.”

He says their mines are located within three miles of the A., T. & S. F. railroad and within two miles of the Rio Grande, and that big bonanzas have been recently found in this mountain consisting of true fissured leads.

Winfield Courier, January 29, 1880.


County Attorney Torrance left Wednesday morning for Pennsyl­vania. He was summoned to attend the sick bed of his mother.

Winfield Courier, February 12, 1880.

Since County Attorney Torrance left for the east, Henry Asp has had his hands full. He has prosecuted six cases, with more criminals “panting for justice,” and has been successful in every case but one. Henry is making a reputation about as rapidly as any young lawyer we know of.

Winfield Courier, March 18, 1880.

Tuesday morning county attorney Torrance and L. J. Webb returned from Rock township where they have been trying the parties engaged in the schoolhouse riot which occurred in district 72 last January. Five of the parties, Jno. Bailey, Abram Brown, Jno. Chitwood, Dero Meader, and Ithinor Saunders were convicted and fined one cent and costs, amounting in all to fifty dollars. The trouble occurred over the division of the district and the attempt of the above named parties to move the schoolhouse against the wishes of the directors.

[EDITORIAL COLUMN.]

Arkansas City Traveler, Wednesday, March 24, 1880

The Republican Convention that assembled at Winfield last Saturday to elect delegates to the State Convention resolved “That the delegates selected by this Convention be, and they are hereby instructed to vote against any man for delegate to the National Convention who is not in favor of the nomination of U. S. Grant.”

The Convention then elected Hon. W. P. Hackney, E. S. Torrance, C. R. Mitchell, A. A. Wiley, L. J. Webb, and Henry Harbaugh as delegates. This is one of the ablest delegations that has yet been sent from Cowley County.

Winfield Courier, April 8, 1880.

Judges Torrance and McDonald are attending court this week at Howard, both being called to look after important cases. Our neighbors know the value of good legal talent.

Start of the fight by newspaper editors and Judge Campbell...

Winfield Courier, April 22, 1880. Editorial Page.

We publish in another column a communication from Judge Campbell. We feel disposed to treat him fairly, and leave his statements with our readers as he gives them. So far as he demands an answer from us, we must defer to another time on account of the crowded state of our columns at present. We advocate the election of Mr. Torrance because we think he is the best man for the place, and it seems that the bar and people of this county are largely of our opinion. So far as the allusion to Mr. Torrance’s “trainers” is concerned, we think it a small fling at those who favor Mr. Torrance, and unworthy of a judge.

                                                      JUDGE CAMPBELL.

                                               WICHITA, Ks., April 12, 1880.

TO THE WINFIELD COURIER: In your last issue appears an article warmly advocating the election of E. S. Torrance to succeed me as Judge of the thir­teenth district, in which is the following language, referring to Mr. Torrance:

“When elected he will attend strictly to the business of his office and not attempt to run the local politics of the whole district nor to make his office the stepping-stone to the U. S. Senate, Congress, or the Governorship.”


It is not my purpose to question this statement, so far as it relates to Mr. Torrance. You plainly imply, however, that the opposite is true of myself.

As this is to be the rallying cry against me this June, as I learn from some instructions received from his trainers, and as this indirect thrust at me is unwarranted as it is ungenerous, I trust you will publish this, my answer.

1. I challenge you to point to an instance of my interfer­ence in local politics. I make this positive statement that I have taken no part in nor attempted to influence or control any convention for the reelection of any county, township, or dis­trict officer. Nor have I tried to influence any voter to vote for or against any candidate for any of such offices. I have studiously kept out of local politics since I have been judge, except to vote for the man of my choice; and, on a few occasions, to say a word in favor of the nominees of the Republican party. Two years ago I opposed the re-election of Mr. Ryan to Congress, and favored the election of Judge Peters, a neighbor and friend, who is, to say the least, the equal of Mr. Ryan in ability, and as I thought more nearly represented the sentiments and the interests of our people. In this I was innocent of any criminal intent, and only exercised the privilege of a citizen. I be­lieved I was right and believe so yet, and all the cliques in Wichita and Winfield cannot compel me to believe otherwise. Under the same circumstances I would do the same thing again. If this is treason, make the most of it.

Since you have seen fit, in commending Mr. Torrance, to go out of your way to cast a discourteous insinuation against me, I hope you will take the trouble to make it good, or confess your inability to do so. I have not dodged the issue.

2. You cannot establish that I have neglected my business as Judge. No doubt I have provoked opposition by a too strict attention to business to suit the selfish designs of some. I leave it to the people who have attended court, and watched with interest its proceedings, to say whether I have been prompt and regular, as well as fearless and impartial, in the discharge of official duty.

3. I must confess that I received a few votes for United States Senator, at the last session of the legislature, and I have little confidence in the sincerity of any man who says he would not be proud of such a compliment. The question as to whether a Kansas judge would seek a position like this depends only upon the probability of his success.

4. I am curious to know your reasons for the belief that I want to be governor. I believe my name was once suggested for governor by a friendly newspaper; but, unfortunately, I was ignorant thereof until it was too late to thank the editor for the compliment.

5. My aspirations for Congress are simply in the minds of would be political leaders. It is the old cry of “Wolf, Wolf.” I now reiterate, publicly, as I have often said in private, that my circumstances and relations are such that I could not make a race for nor accept a seat in Congress in justice to myself and family. I am not a candidate for Congress, and have no desire to be. I have for weeks been importuned to become a candidate, and have refused for the reasons above stated.

6. Allow me to say, in conclusion, that I do not crave a re-election as Judge. Neither will I ask it on my own account. If I did not believe that a very decided majority of the people desired my continuance in office, I would withdraw from a strug­gle in which, if successful, I am not personally benefitted.


I know the character of the opposition to me. I also know that in party conventions the people are apt to be negligent. But in the selection of a Judge, they are more deeply interested than in anything else political. There are combinations and cliques and interests that would love to own the Judge and control the courts, and these always dislike a man they cannot own. I have a faint suspicion that the people have little to say in controlling the political machinery of the country. It may be that you will be able to manufacture enough fox-fire to defeat me this time; but if I correctly estimate the character and temper of the people of this district, my public services will not be lightly cast aside on account of the puerile whining of a dema­gogue that I will use the office of Judge as a stepping-stone to a higher position.

In order to make this charge worthy of consideration, you should be able to show that my supposed ambition has made me less observant of my duty.

                                           Very respectfully, W. P. CAMPBELL.

Winfield Courier, April 22, 1880.

The WINFIELD COURIER appears with a strong article endorsing Judge Torrance for Judge of this district at the next election. It says he is a prominent lawyer and good citizen, equal, we suppose, in those respects to Judge Adams of this city or Judge Campbell, the present occupant of the bench. The COURIER says Torrance will not use the position in politics nor as a stepping stone for himself for higher places. Judge Adams of this county pledges himself to the same end. We have had too much of this judgeship in politics in this State. A most unwarrantable exhibit of its effect was seen in our late State Convention.

Eagle.

[POLITICAL SLATES.]

Winfield Courier, May 6, 1880.

The Telegram plumes itself on the fact that we did not deny its version of how some Republicans had been making up political slates. Its editor is too modest when he supposes that his inventions will be taken as truths unless contradicted. That yarn was a pretty good joke on certain Republicans; and is so taken and needs no denial.

But if it is of any interest to anyone to know what part we have taken in making up slates, we will say that we have named as our choice the following.

Gen. U. S. Grant for President.

Hon. Thos. Ryan for Congress.

J. P. St. John for Governor.

Prof. Thomas for State Superintendent.

Capt. McDermott for Attorney-General.

E. S. Torrance for District Judge.

F. S. Jennings for County Attorney.

R. C. Story for County Superintendent.

We have been asked why we do not put Mr. Hackney’s name on our slate. We confess that we are strongly inclined to do so, because of his activity, influence, and ability to secure for our county what we want, but not because we would expect personal favors for ourself or friends at his hands.

[THE PAYSON CASE: C. H. PAYSON.]

Winfield Courier, May 13, 1880.


Probably no case was ever tried in this county which has created so much interest as the trial of C. H. Payson, just terminated with the verdict of guilty in the District Court. After the verdict large squads of men were gathered on each corner discussing it with much warmth, and criticizing scathingly those who took part in the trial either as witnesses, attorneys, jury, or judge. The majority seemed to sympathize strongly with Payson; eulogized his plea in his own defense as one of the best forensic efforts ever heard; thought that though Payson was probably guilty of something bad, he was not guilty of the offense charged in the indictment; and that if he was guilty of another offense, the prosecuting witness was equally guilty of the same offense. They criticize the county attorney for being too zealous in the prosecution; and the judge as acting as prose­cuting attorney, and ruling out evidence supposed to be favorable to Payson. The minority seemed to be equally sure that Payson was guilty as charged, and had been given a fair trial; that Torrance had done his whole duty and nothing more; that the judge was fair and impartial; and that the jury could not have done otherwise than it did.

The new jury of the whole public will probably never be able to agree.

The case was prosecuted by E. S. Torrance with his usual ability, which of course means to all that know Mr. Torrance, that every point of benefit to the State was thoroughly devel­oped, and the evidence for the defense carefully sifted. We do not believe that Mr. Torrance has any superior in the State as a prosecutor. After the verdict was rendered, you could hear its merits and demerits discussed on every street corner in Winfield as the friends of Payson were surprised, especially at the short time it took the jury to agree.

Winfield Courier, May 13, 1880.

The argument of E. S. Torrance for the prosecution, and of C. H. Payson for the defense, in the trial of the latter are both spoken of as remarkable for power and brilliancy.

Winfield Courier, May 13, 1880.

The Telegram insinuates that there was a ring of lawyers prosecuting the late case against Payson. It probably had in view the fact that Hackney and McDonald were counsel against Payson in other cases, but we are informed by persons who know that neither Hackney and McDonald nor any other attorney assisted Mr. Torrance in any way in the case just tried.

Winfield Courier, May 13, 1880.

County Attorney Torrance has won additional laurels in his successful conduct of the Payson case. Some are inclined to divide the credit equally between the prosecuting attorney and the judge, but we assert, and we will stick to it, that Torrance was the main prosecutor.

[ACTION TAKEN BY JUDGE CAMPBELL: PAYSON CASE.]

Winfield Courier, May 20, 1880.

                                             THAT CONTEMPT OF COURT.

                                    Judge Campbell Sits Down on the COURIER.

Last Monday morning we were taken completely by surprise by an attachment issued for us by Judge Campbell for contempt of court.

On examining the complaint, which was written by the judge himself, we found that the contempt consisted in, and was entire­ly made up of, the following three short articles, which appeared in last week’s COURIER, namely:

                                                     “THE PAYSON CASE.


Probably no case was ever tried in this county which has created so much interest as the trial of C. H. Payson, just terminating with the verdict of guilty in the District Court. After the verdict large squads of men were gathered on each corner discussing it with great warmth, and criticizing scathing­ly those who took part in the trial either as witnesses, attorneys, jury, or judge. The majority seemed to sympathize strongly with Payson; eulogized his plea in his own defense as one of the best forensic efforts ever heard; thought that though Payson was probably guilty of something bad, he was not guilty of the offense charged in the indictment and that if he was guilty of another offense, the prosecuting witness was equally guilty of the same offense. They criticize the county attorney for being too zealous in the prosecution, and the judge as acting as prosecuting attorney and ruling out evidence supposed to be favorable to Payson. The minority seemed to be equally sure that Payson was guilty as charged, and had been given a fair trial, that Torrance had done his whole duty and nothing more, that the judge was fair and impartial, and that the jury could not have done otherwise than it did.

This new jury of the whole public will probably never be able to agree.”

                                              “THE COURT AS ATTORNEY.

The boys tell us that in the trial of Payson, when the witness Goodrich was on the stand for cross-examination, Judge Campbell took the witness out of the hands of the attorneys and cross-examined him for an hour in an effort to make him contra­dict himself.

This reminds us of a case before Judge Davis, of Illinois, in which the attorney for the prosecution demanded that the case proceed to trial at the time set, though the attorney for the defense was absent.

Judge Davis said the case could go to trial, but would mention that a similar case happened in La Salle County, and this court looked to the interest of the absent attorney for the defense, and said Judge Davis, ‘You remember that we beat ’em.’”

“County Attorney Torrance has won additional laurels in his successful conduct of the Payson case. Some are inclined to divide the credit equally between the prosecuting attorney, and the judge, but we assert, and we will stick to it, that Torrance was the main prosecutor.”

The judge considered us guilty of contempt for publishing the above and assessed a fine of $200.

Now anyone who reads the first article above quoted, and was present on the streets last Monday after the verdict was rendered and paying attention to what was going on, knows that the article does not tell the whole truth in regard to the intensity of feeling expressed and numbers of those who sympathized with Payson. It seems to us that any such person can see that we intended to state the facts in a modified way with a view to allay the excitement, instead of attempting to stir it up, as the judge claimed. We did not state our own opinion of the Payson case because we had not attended the trial, and therefore our opinions could not be of value; but we had the idea that Payson had a reasonably fair trial, that the verdict of the jury was just, and that the fact that the judge questioned a witness an hour was not such an offense against law, the witness, and the prisoner as was claimed by the people. Our local attended the trial, and his views, which he expressed in the local columns, were different from ours. We had a clear right to publish that article, and we maintain that had we told the whole truth con­cerning what was said and done on the streets that day, whatever the effect of such publication, it would not have been a contempt.


The second article complained of is a treatment in the same way of the fact that the judge cross-examined a witness for an hour. Those who heard the denunciations, accusations, and threats that were uttered against the judge on this account, will see that our manner of making light of it would tend to relieve the judge rather than to embarrass him. But we had a right to tell the truth about it in any event.

But that last squib was the feather which broke the camel’s back. The judge says that was the meanest thing of all in that it had a political motive. He does not claim that this was in itself a contempt. Well, when we allowed that to go in (we did not write it), we did observe that it looked like taffy for Torrance and irony for Campbell. It did look as though we were partial to Torrance as against Campbell.

Notwithstanding the uniform courtesy we have shown him in our canvass against him for District Judge, he seems to have somehow got the idea that we were personally bitter toward him, and just ready to rake up everything that could be said against him and publish it to the country. Under this hallucination, perhaps it is no wonder that he sees concealed in the articles complained of so much that we never dreamed of.

But we forbear further comment at this time. In our cooler and more dispassionate moments, we may have more to say.

Winfield Courier, May 27, 1880.

It has been suggested that the reason Judge Campbell was mad about that local squib was that it gave Torrance more credit than it did the Judge for the successful prosecution of the case.

Winfield Courier, May 27, 1880.

When W. P. Campbell was informed that Torrance would be a candidate for judge of this Judicial District, Campbell said he would “sit down on Torrance.” One can readily imagine what Campbell meant by that expression. He has too frequently per­formed that operation on lawyers whom he wished to hurt because they were not willing to be his tools.

Winfield Courier, May 27, 1880.

County Attorney Torrance has a new safe.

Winfield Courier, June 3, 1880. Front Page.

The people of the Thirteenth Judicial District, will be called upon, next fall, to elect a successor to Judge W. P. Campbell. The more prominent candidates thus far mentioned are Mr. Torrance, present County Attorney for Cowley County; Judge M. S. Adams, of Wichita; and W. P. Campbell. Judge Campbell has filled the position for eight years. His decisions have been subjected to much criticism, sometimes warmly approved, other times condemned by many people.

[REPORT FROM “L. J. N.” - NORTH RICHLAND.]

Winfield Courier, June 10, 1880.

Our township is in favor of Torrance for District Judge, T. R. Bryan for State Senator, Frank Jennings for County Attor­ney, James McDermott for State Attorney, and A. B. Lemmon for Representative.

[CAMPBELL AGAIN.]

Winfield Courier, June 10, 1880.


In his letter in his own defense in the Commonwealth, W. P. Campbell makes a point that Millington testified that he believed when he wrote the article complained of that Payson was guilty as charged and had had a fair trial.

It will be recollected that we testified that we did not attend the trial, and knew nothing of what occurred during the trial, except what we got from the talk on the streets. It is not strange that a person of our age and experience with popular excitements, should tend to be conservative and to suppose that a smart judge would be substantially fair in the trial of such a case. We took it as a matter of course that the trial had been reasonably fair, and that the defendant was probably guilty as charged. We knew that the jury was composed of good men, and we had the fullest confidence in them.

We still believe the jury decided according to the evidence as placed before them and the law as given by the judge as they were bound to do; but we are now better informed as to the course of the judge, and do not believe that the judge gave Payson a fair and impartial trial.

We have conversed with many lawyers who were present and watched that trial through, observing the conduct of the judge and others connected with the trial; men of sound sense, high legal attainments, and impartial fairness commanding high re­spect, who say that Payson did not have a fair and impartial trial, and all agree in the following statement of facts, which are not disputed by the enemies of Payson—or anyone else.

The prisoner was on trial on the charge of having procured the execution of a deed of valuable real estate from Lena McNeil unto himself, by false representations that the conveyance was to Mrs. McNeil, mother of the grantor.

In the trial Mrs. McNeil, the prosecuting witness, was on the witness stand several hours and testified to all the circum­stances necessary to prove this charge, and also testified that Payson, as her attorney, had procured her signature to a bill of sale of a delivery wagon under the false representation that it was a delivery bond, and had procured her signature to execute a bill of sale of a meat market building and fixtures under the false representation that it was a delivery bond to secure the return of the attached property. She testified to all the circumstances of these two crimes, parallel to that charged in the complaint, in such a manner as would have fully established Payson’s guilt, unless this testimony should be rebutted. Lena McNeil and other witnesses corroborated the testimony of Mrs. McNeil in many respects, and the case as against Payson was completely made out.

To rebut this evidence the defense placed on the stand the witness, Goodrich, who testified that he took supper with Payson at the house kept by Mrs. McNeil, being the property Lena had deeded to Payson as charged in the information, after that deed was made; that after supper Mrs. McNeil sat with him on the porch in conversation, during which witness said to Mrs. McNeil that “the porch and view were very fine,” to which Mrs. McNeil an­swered that “it would be a very pleasant place for Payson and his lady to sit and enjoy the sea breezes,” and other words tending to indicate that she had voluntarily had the property conveyed to Payson.

County Attorney Torrance subjected the witness to a rigid cross-examination in the attempt to break the force of his testimony. Judge Campbell then took the witness, with language, air, and manner that said in effect: “This witness has lied. Torrance don’t know enough to make witness entangle himself and prove that he has lied. I will show these people how to do it.”


With a wink at the prosecuting witness, Campbell commenced to question the witness, Goodrich, about his whole history and matters and things occurring before and after the time of the conversation he had described, making every effort to lead him to cross himself, for about an hour, asking many questions which were characterized by our informants as outrageous.

In relation to the two parallel crimes committed by Payson, as established by the evidence already in, the defense brought forward Max Shoeb and two other witnesses, who were ready to swear that “they, being about to purchase the delivery wagon and the meat market house and fixtures, had taken the two bills of sale to Mrs. McNeil, explained them to her, and asked her if she had sold the property and had executed the two bills of sale; that she answered that she had sold the property and that the two bills of sale were all right.”

Judge Campbell ruled that these witnesses should not testify on this matter, and Shoeb with the two other witnesses were dismissed without giving their evidence.

Campbell gave as his reason that the evidence was not relevant to the charge on which Payson was being tried, and in answer to the plea that the defense ought to be allowed to rebut the testimony already admitted against Payson, answered that he would rule that out.

But it was in convincing them that Payson had been in the habit of committing such crimes as the one charged (a charge that could not but have its effect on the minds of the jury) that the strong rulings of the Judge against Payson in other respects and in his charge to the jury, brought about the verdict of guilty.

On the motion for a new trial, Judge Coldwell presented this state of facts to the judge in a forcible though courteous manner, as reason why a new trial should be granted, stating he hoped that Judge Campbell would not, by refusing this motion, put himself on record as asserting the right of a court to take the place of a prosecutor, and cross-examine a witness in that way, hitherto unheard of in the jurisprudence of this county.

Campbell answered that it had been practiced by the English judges, to which Judge Coldwell replied, “Not for the last 196 years.”

This in open court was “thrust into Campbell’s face” in a more incisive manner than any newspaper could have done it, yet Judge Coldwell was not fined for contempt, and why? Because he was not opposing the re-election of Campbell. The COURIER was, had mentioned that Campbell cross-questioned a witness for about an hour, and insisted that Torrance was the main prosecutor. It was fined for opposing Campbell’s re-election and for nothing else.

Now, we do not care to express an opinion on Payson’s guilt or innocence of the crime charged, but what we have to say is that we do not now believe that he had a fair trial; that we are now convinced by the testimony of a great number of intelligent men, who heard the whole trial, that the conduct of Campbell during that trial was greatly unfair and wrong to the extent that probably the verdict of the jury would otherwise have been different.

[SITTING DOWN ON TORRANCE....MORE ABOUT CAMPBELL.]

Winfield Courier, June 10, 1880.

When W. P. Campbell was informed that Torrance would be a candidate for the office of District Judge, he was angry, used profane language, and said he would “sit down on Torrance.”


When the court convened here at last term, Torrance as County Attorney, presented an information against Payson. Campbell, sitting as Judge, immediately made one of his stump speeches about half an hour long to show that Torrance, his competitor for the office of Judge, did not know enough to draw an information that would stick, and said that he would set aside the information in the morning unless Torrance should show authorities sustaining the sufficiency of the information, which he intimated could not be done. After adjournment that evening a prominent attorney informed us that the judge would be better informed by morning and would sustain the information. We do not charge that the judge had interviews with the prosecuting witness or with anyone else on that subject during the evening; but we were not surprised when on the following morning, the judge turned front and sustained the information.

What influenced Judge Campbell to forbear “sitting down on Torrance” at that time, we do not now pretend to say, but we would like his answers to the following conundrums, either yes or no, to each.

1st: Did you (Campbell) during that evening or morning before court convened, have any interview with any attorney, witness, or other person in which such attorney, witness, or other person attempted to influence you; or presented any consid­eration to your mind, tending to influence you to sustain the information?

2nd: Was not such interference a plain and flagrant con­tempt of court?

3rd: Did you punish such contempt by arrest and fine of two thousand dollars, or any other sum?

We ask these questions not to make insinuations, but because there are a great many about here who put a much worse construc­tion on the movements of Judge Campbell at that time than we do.

[OUR POPULATION.]

Winfield Courier, June 10, 1880.

The assessor has made his return of agricultural and other statistics for the city of Winfield, from which we get the following.

Number of horses, 305.

Number of mules, 18.

Number of cows, 69.

Number of other cattle, 58.

Number of swine, 38.

Number of bushels of corn on hands the 1st of March, 17,500.

Number of families, 567.

Number of inhabitants, 2,766.

The above figures are those within corporate limits of the city on March 1st. Since the limits have been extended, the residents of Andrew’s, Thompson’s, and Citizens’ Additions, all adjoining the city on the north and east, are on the Walnut township books, and a few adjoining the city on the west in Vernon township. They number 375 on both books. These added to the 2,766 in the city proper, would make 3,141 as the number of inhabitants in Winfield on March 1st, 1880. Monitor.

[COMMUNICATION FROM DEXTER RE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.]


Winfield Courier, June 10, 1880.

The silence of the Monitor on the late contempt proceedings is a topic of general conversation in Dexter. The press of this district, and indeed throughout the state, with unusual unanimi­ty, has condemned the conduct of Judge Campbell with just and merited severity. The numerous readers of the Monitor would like to be informed of the reasons for its silence. Surely the Monitor cannot pretend that an occurrence which has aroused and excited the indignation of the people of this judicial district as never before, is of too light and trivial a character to attract its attention. There must be reasons for this silence. Is there any obligation to forbear comment? Does Mr. Conklin approve or condemn? Will he rise and explain? DEXTER.

[MORE ON JUDGE W. P. CAMPBELL.]

Winfield Courier, June 10, 1880.

W. P. Campbell has written to the Commonwealth and through it “thrust into the faces” of the Supreme Court Judges an argu­ment against us in his contempt case against us while the case was pending before them, evidently intended to influence their decision of the case. This according to his own ruling is a clear case of contempt and makes it the duty of that court or its judges to bring Campbell before them and fine him more than two hundred dollars for contempt.

Aside from its excellent attempt to prejudice the Supreme Court in his favor, his letter is a contemptible whine in which he falsifies the facts in order to make it appear that he had some excuse for his outrages. We shall not follow his example by going to a Topeka paper to answer him.

[COMMENTS ON CAMPBELL - OXFORD REFLEX.]

Winfield Courier, June 10, 1880.

The Republican papers in the 13th Judicial District refuse to publish any more of “Bill” Campbell’s letters, and his only comfort now is in writing long-winded articles to the Commonwealth of Topeka. His last effusion is a defense of himself in the “contempt” suit against Millington and Allison. In the whole 13th District, but two papers support Campbell. The Wichita Eagle, because Campbell is a Wichita man, and the Cowley County Monitor, because its editor is a new-comer and doesn’t know any better. “Bill,” like the man about to be drowned, catches at every straw, but he is now so far gone that a stern wheel steamer couldn’t save him. Oxford Reflex.

[But the Eagle claims to be for Adams and the Monitor to be for Torrance. How is this?]

[FLORAL GLEANINGS BY “RAL”.]

Winfield Courier, June 10, 1880.

As Mrs. Rustic seems to have retired from the field, I will try my pen, but not to fill her place.

Our friend A. J. Jarvis has traded his farm here for one in Hoosierdom, and thinks of returning to that goodly land this fall. We are sorry to lose such a good family and hope they will be warmly received by their many friends back there.

Mrs. Cyrus Dalgarn has gone to Missouri to visit her mother; which leaves our blacksmith to “batch” again.


Miss Annie Jarvis is visiting her grandma at Burden.

Miss Bella Read’s 12th birthday party on May 29th was quite a success. There were thirty-eight young Americans there. It was quite a sight to see the young braves march with their little sweethearts down to dinner, where they found a long table spread with a bountiful supply of good things. Miss Hattie McFinley and Miss Bella entertained them with splendid music on the organ.

Dr. Knickerbocker was called to set the broken arm of Willie Bovee, and was seen returning with a smiling countenance and a beautiful rose in the button-hole of his coat.

Mr. Read seems to be doing a thriving business and is still getting new goods. Mrs. Read is expecting another lot of milli­nery goods. Then if I wore ribbons in my hat, I should invest.

                                                                    RAL.

[TORRANCE VS. CAMPBELL - ELK FALLS SIGNAL.]

Winfield Courier, June 10, 1880.

We have heard it rumored that Hon. E. S. Torrance, of Winfield, candidate for Judge of the 13th Judicial District, will, in case his chances for nomination at the convention are doubtful, withdraw in favor of Campbell. This we take the liberty to positively deny. Mr. Torrance is a candidate and is working for his nomination, against Campbell first, last, and all the time. We are credibly informed that this is a scheme to further Mr. M. S. Adams’ chances for the nomination, but it will not work. Mr. Torrance has been induced by many solid friends in the district, even at the home of both Campbell and Adams, to become a candidate and notwithstanding the earnest effort made by a few of Campbell’s friends to induce him to withdraw, he will stick to the field and doubtless be nominated by the convention. As an attorney he is far superior to either of his opponents, and he can be relied upon for a fair and impartial decision in all cases brought before him; which is more than can be said of our present judge. He is a more able man for the judgeship than is the present incumbent for even the state; and it is well known that Judge Campbell is daily gaining notoriety as a “star” actor.

Again, we assert that the rumor that Torrance will withdraw in favor of Campbell is false, and that he will be a candidate subject to the decision of the convention, regardless to any inducements that may be extended by any other candidates or their friends to get him to withdraw.  Elk Falls Signal.

[We endorse the above so far as it relates to Torrance, but think the absurd idea that he would in any case favor Campbell was invented and put afloat by Campbell and his friends. Torrance is a candidate not only because the place is desirable, but because he knows that Campbell is grossly unfit for the office and a dangerous tyrant, and would favor any respectable lawyer as against Campbell. We imagine that no one would suspect us of supporting a man who would play into Campbell’s hands.]

Winfield Courier, June 17, 1880.

S. M. Jarvis and Mr. Torrance of Winfield, were in town this week. Mr. Torrance is a candidate for Judge. He is spoken of very highly by those who have known him, and he certainly has the appearance of a gentleman. Sedan Times.

Winfield Courier, June 17, 1880.

                                                 Mene! Mene! Tekel Upharsin!


                                 Campbell Leaves His Court in Sumner in the Hands

                                                          of a Judge pro tem

                                      TO ELECTIONEER FOR RE-ELECTION.

                                             But His Nose Gets Away With Him.

                                               Torrance Carries Chautauqua.

Last Saturday the primaries were held in Chautauqua County to choose delegates to the county convention, to elect delegates to the judicial, as well as the congressional, convention.

Campbell had abandoned his court in Sumner County, where a judge pro tem was appointed to serve in his stead, and had spent the whole week in explaining to the Chautauquas those little charges of libertinism, attempt to outrage, too much whiskey and tyranny in general, which are heard of in that county, and in telling all the fine things he would do for those who support him, but on Saturday he had a big patch over his nose, which kept him busy that day in explaining that he was not drunk when he fell out of his buggy, but that it was a mere accident, etc. But his nose got away with him, and Torrance carried the county. Sedan elected Torrance delegates by a two-thirds majority, and the other towns appear to have gone in the same way. Chautauqua was claimed to be solid for Campbell, and was the only county in the district, except his own, which we thought he could carry. It now begins to look as though he would not get a single vote in the judicial convention. He must now begin to see the “hand writing upon the wall.”

[REPORT FROM “CAHOKA” - MAPLE MATTERS.]

Winfield Courier, June 17, 1880.

We, of Maple, are looking forward to our home politics with some feelings of interest. Here is our Slate, which we submit without hesitation: For Congress, Tom Ryan; State Senator, Hackney; Representatives, Lemmon and Mitchell; District Judge, Torrance; County Attorney, H. E. Asp.

Arkansas City Traveler, June 23, 1880

The fight between Campbell, Adams, and Torrance grows interesting.

Arkansas City Traveler, July 14, 1880. Editorial Page.

                                                        THE JUDGESHIP.

We notice in the Caldwell Commercial and other Sumner County papers articles reflecting on the ability of E. S. Torrance, Cowley County’s candidate for District Judge. These papers are trying to throw out the impression that Mr. Torrance is not qualified for the position; but it would be a difficult matter to make anyone who is at all acquainted with him believe such stuff, and we deprecate that such an evidently unfair disposition is shown by the friends of Mr. Adams. Believing that Wichita’s son had but little chances of success in this contest, that it was but his overweening self-esteem that kept him up at all, we have purposely refrained from making any personal campaign against him, and trusted he had the honor to discourage any such attack on Mr. Torrance as we refer to above.

The facts are that Mr. Torrance has no superior in ability as an attorney or jurist in this district. He is a man of education and refinement, a courteous gentleman in every respect, and the unfounded and contemptible insinuations in the articles referred to will only rebound with greater force against the man that wrote or dictated them—his opponent, Mr. Adams.


Mr. Torrance has been engaged in most of the important trials in this and adjoining counties, and has demonstrated to all persons of intelligence that he is not only an able advocate, but an able jurist in every sense of the term. To say that he is the favorite of Judge Campbell is no discredit that we know of, for he is admired by all who know him, as he is a man of sterling integrity of character. We believe that Judge Campbell is a man of more than ordinary ability as a judge, and that he has endeav­ored at all times to decide the questions coming before him according to the laws and evidence, and if the friends of Mr. Adams expect to gain his nomination by instituting a mud fusillade against a man who is not a candidate, they will find themselves sadly mistaken.

Another thing: Mr. Torrance has been absolutely honorable in this campaign, and if defeated in the nominating convention, he will abide by such decree. But what of Mr. Adams?  In a conversation a few weeks since he stated to us that he “wanted it understood that he was in the race, and would stay there until fairly beaten in the convention.” This was all very good, but Mr. Adams went further and made the rather remarkable statement that if he had cause to think he was not beaten fairly, “he was not saying what he would do!”

Surely this is hardly consistent with true Republicanism, or even common fairness among men of principle, as there is but one way such a remark can be con­strued. We are not at all alarmed at Mr. Adams’ attitude, however. An independent canvass would avail him nothing. We produce the above simply to show the motive and lack of principle that are actuating the opposers of Mr. Torrance. Let the fair-minded voters of this district see to it that such a disposition does not triumph.

Winfield Courier, July 15, 1880.

The Caldwell Commercial, in the interest of Judge M. S. Adams in a late number, has made a low attack on Mr. Torrance, and its article has been copied into the Daily Telegram. We think there is no other paper in the district so unfair as to have published that article. We are surprised beyond measure that C. C. Black, who has been treated with so much courtesy by his neighbors, should permit an article so untrue and discourte­ous toward one of those same neighbors to appear in his paper.

We have several reasons for believing that the article in question was inspired by Judge Adams himself. He has been promising to conduct an honorable campaign, but he has at the same time been dealing out insinuations against Torrance. His own record as a judge and a lawyer is such that if it was known to the people of this district, he could not get the vote of a single delegate; but the friends of Torrance have preferred to conduct the canvass on the merits of their candidate rather than on the demerits of Judge Adams. MORE SAID LIKE THIS.

E. S. Torrance is a man of high character and standing in this community, where he is best known. He has been well and prominently known here for ten years, and there is not a stain upon his record. Ten years ago he came to this county, a thor­oughly well educated young man just entered upon the practice of his chosen profession, the law. Of course, he was not then a great lawyer, but he was bright, industrious, and ambitious. Each year he added largely to his knowledge of the law, of human nature, and of a wide range of practical subjects. Each year strengthened his judgment and cleared his intellect, until now he is one of the best, soundest, and clearest headed lawyers in this district, already famous for so many able attorneys which taken together perhaps constitute the ablest bar in the state.


For six years he has held the office of County Attorney of this county and has acquitted himself therein with signal abili­ty. Here he has exhibited a clear judicial mind, great re­search, and conscientious independence.

The Commercial says he is the pet of Judge Campbell and that Campbell is playing into Torrance’s hands. We have no doubt that Campbell respects Torrance as an able and honorable attorney, that he knows Torrance is far more fit for the office of judge than his opponent. but Torrance has never been his pet in any sense.

[REPORT FROM X. Y. CAESAR - BALTIMORE.]

Winfield Courier, July 15, 1880.

As we expect to see the law poured upon this district in “Torrance” this fall, we are not afraid our county will suffer in the least in the hands of that venomous (?) Asp.

Six Counties to vote on Judge: Chautauqua, Cowley, Elk, Butler, Sedgwick, and Sumner...

Winfield Courier, August 12, 1880.

The Republicans of Elk County met in convention last week and John W. Riley, of Longton; Adrian Reynolds, of Howard; and W. C. Parker, of Moline, were then elected as delegates to the Judicial Convention, and instructed for Hon. E. S. Torrance of Winfield, and to use all honorable means to secure his nomina­tion. The convention was nearly unanimous. Thus Torrance has the unanimous delegations from the three counties which have yet held their conventions: Chautauqua 4, Cowley 6, and Elk 3, making 13 delegates. It is believed that Butler will elect 6 delegates for Torrance on the 20th, in which case Sedgwick may give him her 6 delegates on the 21st, and Summer her 5 on the 23rd, making the nomination unanimous on the 24th.

Arkansas City Traveler, August 11, 1880.

                                                        E. S. TORRANCE.

Hon. E. S. Torrance, of Winfield, candidate for District Judge, has been in our county recently looking up his political prospects, and feels much encouraged. The only thing that can be offered against Mr. Torrance is that he is not so well acquainted with our people generally as his opponent, Mr. Adams, but wherever he has an acquaintance he also has a friend, and we wish he could spend more of his time with us getting acquainted with our people. The people of Winfield and Cowley County are solid for him, which is an excellent recommendation, and one which, from what we can learn, cannot be claimed by his opponent. Mr. Torrance has been county attorney for Cowley County for several years, and could have continued longer had he desired. He is a young man of more than average ability and is peculiarly fitted for the bench as well as bar. He stands well among the attorneys of the district, as well as in other districts where he occasion­ally has professional calls.

The assertion that Mr. Torrance is a pet of Judge Campbell’s is simply a story gotten up by his opponents to thwart his chances of nomination. It is sufficient to refer to the nomina­tion in Chautauqua County as evidence on this point. Adams did not enter into the canvass there, but Campbell did his utmost and failed ingloriously, the delegates elected being instructed to vote for Torrance first, last, and all the time.


We believe Mr. Torrance will be nominated on the first ballot, and would not be surprised if it came by acclamation. He will certainly get the solid vote of Cowley, six, Chautauqua, four, and Elk, three; making thirteen votes; lacking only three of a nomination. He will be likely to divide the delegation from Sedgwick and get the necessary three more votes. Sumner will give him three of her five if not all of them, and Butler will be recreant to her duty if she does not give him her solid vote of six delegates. Nobody questions Mr. Torrance’s ability for the position or integrity as a gentleman; he stands well at home and abroad, and it seems to us that it is the duty of our people to encourage him in his honorable aspirations and give him a solid delegation from Butler. Augusta Republican.

Winfield Courier, August 26, 1880.

Hon. E. S. Torrance now has thirteen delegates instructed for him, lacking only three of the necessary number. It will not be hard for him to get those three, and he will then have a practical walk-over. Recent statements have led us to think that Torrance is the best man for the place, and we hope Butler County will instruct for him and thus secure the nomination of a good man. Douglass Index.

Arkansas City Traveler, September 1, 1880.

                                                 JUDGE E. S. TORRANCE.

After the most exciting convention ever held in this dis­trict, E. S. Torrance was nominated for Judge on the 84th ballot at Winfield on Wednesday of last week. Mr. Torrance will be elected by a handsome majority, and the people of the 13th judicial district will never have cause to regret the action of the convention.

Torrance nominated for Thirteenth Judicial District...

Winfield Courier, September 2, 1880.

The Republican Judicial convention for the Thirteenth Judicial District of Kansas, which met at Winfield September 24th, could not have done better than it did in the nomination of Hon. E. S. Torrance for judge of this district for the next four years. In any event, the Republican nomination in this district is about equivalent to an election, but this nomination is recognized by all parties as so fit that it is probable the Democrats will make no nomination, and that Mr. Torrance will have no opposition.

Mr. Torrance comes from a clear-headed, vigorous, and intellectual stock. His father, the Rev. Adam Torrance, of Washington, now eighty years old, is still in full vigor mentally and physically.

Elisha S. Torrance was born at New Alexandria, Pennsylvania, in 1846. He graduated at the Washington and Jefferson College, Pennsylvania, in 1867, at the age of 21. He then continued the study of law in the offices of distinguished attorneys, the last of whom was the Hon. Almerin Gillett, at Emporia, from January 1 to September 15th, 1870, at which time he came to Cowley County and commenced the practice of law.

During the last ten years he has devoted himself to the study of his profession with untiring assiduity, and has risen to an enviable rank as a scholarly attorney. His practice has been quite large, and he has filled the office of county attorney in this county for six years with distinguished honor and ability.

With a spotless record, a high character, a clear head, a cultured brain, an enthusiastic love of justice and right, we predict for him a noble career on the bench.

[STATE/LOCAL NEWS.]


Winfield Courier, November 11, 1880.

Hon. C. R. Mitchell, member elect from the 89th representa­tive district, proves to be old 329 himself. His majority is exactly 329, and when Democrats write those figures on post-office boxes, door steps, and windows after this, C. R. will prosecute them for forgery.

From the official returns as given in the corrected table in this paper, it will be seen that in this county Garfield’s plurality is 1,073; St. John’s 1,080; Ryan’s 1,058; Torrance’s, 4,000. In the county Hackney’s majority is 774; Jennings, 919; Gans, 912; Bedilion’s, 1,121; Story’s 484. Lemmon’s majority in the 88th representative district is 631; Mitchell’s in the 89th is 329. Bullington’s majority in the 3rd commissioner district is 164.

Torrance to build residence on southeast corner of Fuller block...

Winfield Courier, November 11, 1880.

E. S. Torrance, judge elect, will soon build a fine resi­dence on the Southeast corner of Fuller block.

Winfield Courier, November 18, 1880.

Sedgwick County gave pluralities as follows:  Garfield, 934; St. John, 844; Ryan, 747; Torrance, 2321; Sluss, 1145; Prohibi­tion, 152.

Winfield Courier, November 18, 1880.

Sumner County gave pluralities as follows:  Garfield, 654; St. John, 646; Ryan, 580; Torrance, 2,111; Sluss, 468; Prohibi­tion, 1,193.

Winfield Courier, November 18, 1880.

E. S. Torrance has been buying a large amount of law books and probably intends to be fully read up on the questions on which he will have to adjudicate. He has one of the most exten­sive law libraries in Southern Kansas.

Winfield Courier, December 16, 1880.

Judge Campbell has taken much pains to clear the court docket of all cases in which Judge Torrance has had part as counsel.

[ECHOES FROM THE JAIL! BY “OCCASIONAL.”]

Winfield Courier, December 23, 1880.

                                                        Criminal Calendar.

                   Parents look after your boys. Thieves keep out of Cowley County.

                                                     An Appeal for Conway.

When the curtain dropped last Saturday upon the last offi­cial act of Judge W. P. Campbell, so far as Cowley County is concerned, there was gladness in the hearts of some, and sorrow in those of others. It is not in my province to speak of the Judge as a jurist. I am incompetent, but to one not “learned in the law” he has been an honor to the Bench and the friend of the “Toilers” and the poor and from many of this class go with him their best wishes for the future, be his surroundings what they may. Perhaps the most painful causes in the court just closed were the large increase of divorce cases and crime. There seems to be something radically wrong somewhere. Men swear devotion to love’s most ardent desire and then send their wives into the divorce court to have a long list of domestic trouble and horrors laid before the public, while men look on and chuckle with devilish delight at the woes and sufferings of heart broken wives whose highest hopes have been strangled and their future clouded, perhaps forever; but to the criminals:


Thomas King, aged 20 years, well educated, temperate in his habits, arrested for stealing money from the Rev. Father Kelly, plead guilty and was sent up for one year.

Ernest Lewis, aged 16, robbed Mr. Kelly’s boot shop in Winfield, plead guilty. One year.

Clinton Grimes stole ten dollars from Mr. Venable of Richland Township by entering his house in the night time. One year.

Theodore Miller, aged twenty, charged with having stolen a buggy belonging to William Ausbrook of Winfield last February and brought back from Toledo, Ohio. Jury disagreed and in the very slightest manner he escaped a long term, probably, in the penitentiary.

Willie Fogg, aged fifteen, a smart, active, intelligent boy, for taking a horse from Mr. Bonnell, was sent to the county jail for six months. Is there not some good man who will interest himself in this boy’s welfare? He is from New Hampshire and probably tells the whole story when he says he has a stepfather and that he has not seen his mother for two years. He wants to go to school and learn a trade.

                                Alfred Conway Trial Awakened Strong Interest.

The trial that awakened the strongest interest was that of Alfred Conway of Bolton township, tried for assaulting Rialdo Blackman with a deadly weapon with intent to kill:  prosecuted with the energy and skill for which Torrance and Asp are noted; defended by Houston and Mitchell with the same stubborn determi­nation as the prosecutors. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Guilty? Yes, horrid word! It fell like a funeral dirge on the ears of the Conway family and that of his young bride; to her it meant more than death; to her it meant the shutting out of the last ray of sunshine that makes this life worth living; to her it meant the snatching away by the iron arm of the law, the Idol of her soul; the sheet anchor of her hopes upon this side of eternity. To her vision, seen through her tears, may have arisen the towering walls of the state penitentiary that seemed more terrible than the grave. Possibly, for the first time Andrew Conway realized his true position and may have regretted the hot blood of anger that when aroused flowed through his veins. The court, moved, maybe, by pity and the extenuating circumstances that surround the case, sentenced Conway—for six months to the county jail and to pay the costs. He has resolved to enter upon a new life and henceforth will devote his attention to the care of his young wife who was so faithful to him, and thereby chal­lenge the respect of his neighbors and by their aid build up what he has torn down. Will they help him? OCCASIONAL.

Torrance’s old law partner...

[HON. JOHN H. FAIRBANKS:  EARLY CITIZEN.]

Winfield Courier, December 30, 1880.

Hon. John B. Fairbanks, of Massachusetts, appeared in Winfield last Tuesday, and met the cordial greetings of the early settlers in this vicinity.

Ten years ago when Winfield began to be, Mr. Fairbanks first appeared to us. Then a very few box homes were all there was of this city, rooms were scarce, and law business had not opened. Mr. Fairbanks, proposing to grow up with the country, com­menced in the ground where growth usually commences. He lived in a dug-out near the bank of the river and “kept bach” with one or two others. We saw him shoving a jack plain day after day and he did it well. When the law business began to grow, he prac­ticed law in the courts, in partnership with E. S. Torrance, now elected district judge.


At our first Republican convention for the nomination of a candidate for judge of this district, Mr. Fairbanks came within one vote of the nomination; and if the Cowley Republicans had been as well consolidated then as they were last summer, he would have been our district judge for the last eight years.

He remained among us five years and then returned to his early home with the admiration and respect of all his acquain­tances here and was soon placed in responsible and honorable positions in his native state.

Mr. Fairbanks is a gentleman of rare culture such as is most highly appreciated in the higher walks of life in the old Bay State. He is in the prime and vigor of life, and his many warm friends here expect yet to see him prominent in the councils of the nation.

[JUDICIAL DISTRICTS IN STATE SHOULD BE ORGANIZED.]

Winfield Courier, January 13, 1881.

The 13th Judicial District, containing the largest popula­tion, is ours, in which W. P. Campbell has presided as judge and E. S. Torrance is judge elect. It is composed of the counties of Chautauqua, Elk, Butler, Cowley, Sumner, and Sedgwick. There is no right nor justice in the present manner in which the state is divided in judicial districts. It is all wrong from the founda­tion up. There is no way to cure this gross injustice and inequality but by redistricting the state. Fifteen districts in the state are enough, but they should be constructed so as to divide the work among the fifteen judges. We hope our legisla­ture will have the nerve to attend to this matter at once.

First case for Judge Torrance...

Winfield Courier, January 13, 1881.

Judge Torrance went to Wichita Monday to take charge of the court now in session there. His first court in this county commences in March.

Arkansas City Traveler, January 19, 1881.

Our new Judge, E. S. Torrance, donned the judicial ermine on Tuesday of last week, and, says the Wichita Eagle, sat down before the bar and jury to listen to the testimony of a witness in his first case, being a suit for damages.

[THE MONITOR’S LOCALS.]

Winfield Courier, January 20, 1881.

On Tuesday Judge Torrance went to Wichita to piece out a term of court for Judge Campbell, and tried his first case last Wednesday.

Winfield Courier, January 27, 1881.

Judge Torrance adjourned court Friday afternoon until the next regular term. He held court for four days. It was his introduction to this circuit as judge. He made a very favorable impression, not only on the bar but on the public. He means business. Court was called at 9 o’clock a.m. promptly and there was no lagging permitted. He is attentive, prompt, and careful, and his decisions show careful reading and a retentive memory. The situation was new, and to many it would have been embarrass­ing if not confusing, but Judge Torrance seemed as cool as an old Judge. The bar, so far as we have secured an impression, seem to think there is the stuff in him for an able judge. Wichita Beacon.

[JUDICIAL DISTRICTS.]

Winfield Courier, February 3, 1881.


It is understood that instead of creating new districts for judicial purposes, the whole State will be re-districted without increasing the number of districts. The main trouble is to equalize the districts and yet make a district for each judge elected to include his present residence. We do not like the idea of making ugly, inconvenient districts just to accommodate the present judges for a short time. The districts should be formed without reference to the location of the present judges, but with sole reference to the convenience of the people. The judges should then be assigned to the districts in which they live, except in case two or more judges are legislated into the same district, when lots should be drawn to determine which should be assigned to a district which is left with no resident judge. The object of legislation is to benefit the people, not to benefit judges or other officers as such. One scheme is to make Torrance’s district take in Cowley and run west to the west line of the state, 300 miles long by about 30 wide; and make the west three-fourths of the state into five such districts of great longitude and little latitude, then cut the eastern one third into ten districts in all manner of shapes from a pot-hook to a cast iron plow wrench.

Torrance has a son...

Winfield Courier, February 10, 1881.

Judge Torrance is the father of a bouncing boy.

Winfield Courier, March 17, 1881.

Judge Torrance has been holding court in Butler County for the past week.

Winfield Courier, April 21, 1881.

Our new Judge, Hon. E. S. Torrance, is holding his first term of court in Elk County and to the pleasure of friends and surprise of those who opposed him for election, our young friend wears the judicial ermine with as much dignity and ease as any old judge. Mr. Torrance is but a boy in years, but in point of ability and experience in the law, he is the peer of any lawyer or jurist in Southern Kansas. The bar of this district can rest assured that they are practicing their profession before a clear headed and impartial court. Courant.

[WELLINGTON PRESS ITEMS.]

Winfield Courier, April 28, 1881.

One of the best sentences we have heard pronounced for many a day came from Judge E. S. Torrance last Tuesday morning, when an attorney of the bar proposed taking up a divorce case, while the court was waiting for the arrival of a witness after a jury had been drawn. In answer to the remark that it would require but a few moments, the Judge said: “It takes a good while to get a divorce in this court.” This policy lived out will result in great good to the country.

Arkansas City Traveler, May 4, 1881.

Wellington has been a city without any legal ordinances for the past two years. They did not find it out though, till a recent decision of Judge Torrance enlightened them, and now they will have to fly around and pass a new set of ordinances, at the next meeting of the City Council.

Winfield Courier, May 5, 1881.

More business was done during the first half day of the present term than is usually done in two days of court. Judge Torrance is very strict in the enforcement of order and the rapid transaction of business.


Winfield Courier, May 5, 1881.

Judge Torrance starts off in a business-like manner. Court convened on time Monday morning and disposed of about fifty cases before dinner. The Judge instructed the bailiff to stop all whispering and moving about in the courtroom, and to allow no persons to go out while witnesses were on the stand. The Judge insists that court is held for the purpose of transacting busi­ness, and that everything is done to expedite it.

[STATE/LOCAL NEWS.]

Winfield Courier, May 12, 1881.

Judge Torrance is “old business” himself. Eighty cases disposed of on the first day of court. “How is that for high?”

Winfield Courier, May 12, 1881.

The District Court has been grinding out matters quite rapidly during the past week. Judge Torrance hopes to clear the docket this term, but we do not think he can accomplish it.

Winfield Courier, May 19, 1881.

Mr. A. B. Taylor and Sammy Roberts were admitted to the bar last Friday, and Saturday evening the “event” was celebrated by ice cream, cake, etc., at Jim Hill’s, which was partaken of by about fifteen members of the bar, Judge Torrance, and several of the press gang. The boys were heartily welcomed to their new vocation.

[Note: I have always been confused about the town of “Torrance” and the reference to the “Torrance Mine” near Socorro, New Mexico, mentioned in the next article. It appears that the town was named “Torrance” after Judge E. S. Torrance from this article. MAW]

Winfield Courier, May 26, 1881.

At the close of the Convention of the Arkansas Valley Editorial Association at Dodge City on Saturday, May 14th, resolutions were adopted unanimously.

THEY HAD AN EDITORIAL RECEPTION AT DODGE CITY AND FORT DODGE, AND THEN MADE AN EXCURSION TO NEW MEXICO. At Dodge City on May 14th they took possession of the splendid Pullman palace car, Wayne, and took off...D. A. Millington, wife, and Miss Jessie Millington of the COURIER; and R. R. Conklin, of the Monitor, in the party of editors. THEY WENT TO TRINIDAD, COLORADO...”ascending the 16 miles of the heaviest grade up a winding canyon with the best view of our trip around and behind us the Spanish Peaks and the peaks of the Sangre Da Christo looming up snow covered in the distance, we passed through the tunnel at the summit of the Raton mountains and passing downward into New Mexico, reached Las Vegas at 1 o’clock p.m. and at six o’clock reached Santa Fe.”


AT SANTA FE, STAYED AT THE EXCHANGE HOTEL, TOOK IN SITES, AND WERE ATTENDED BY A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE, INCLUDING GENERAL LEW WALLACE, LATE GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO, U. S. CAVALRY BAND, ETC. ENTERTAINED THAT EVENING AT A HALL, THE “ENGLISH KITCHEN,” AND THEN WENT TO SOCORRO, “one hundred and sixty miles to the southwest, down the valley of the Rio Grande. Before starting from Santa Fe, we telegraphed the people of Socorro that we were coming with the next express train. . . we visited the famous Torrance mine, up the side of the Socorro mountain about five miles from the city. . . .

Supt. J. A. Waller and Foreman James Richards, who armed us with a star candle each, led us into the mountain through long tunnels and passages and down and up deep pits and shafts until we were satisfied with subterranean exploration.

At Socorro the party met Mrs. Conkling, the widow of the editor who was assassinated by some Mexicans the previous winter. Millington states: “Our party only visited one mine, the Torrance. This was named by some young men from Torrance, in Cowley County, Kansas, and is a namesake of our District Judge Torrance, a grandchild as it were. At this mine a great deal of work has been done and has paid well, though the ore has to be carted five miles to the railroad and shipped 125 miles to Cerrillos for reduction. There are many mines in this vicinity that seem to be paying well. They have bought all the material for a large stamp mill which will be soon put up and in opera­tion. Socorro is the supply point of a very large number of leading mining camps: Madalina, Del Osa, and Black Range moun­tains are the sites of the best mining camps tributary to this city. A railroad is projected from Socorro to the Black Range, 80 to 100 miles, which is pretty sure to be built, and railroads in other directions are projected and promising.

THEY NEXT WENT TO LAS VEGAS...STAYED AT THE ST. NICHOLAS HOTEL, TOOK IN BIG BANQUET AND BALL...NEXT DAY TOOK IN THE HOT SPRINGS. “Las Vegas is destined to become a second Denver. The new Hot Springs hotel is one of the finest in the whole country and contains some five hundred rooms.”

“We left at 2 o’clock p.m. on Friday, and the writer reached Winfield, six hundred and fifty miles, in thirty-five hours.”

Winfield Courier, June 23, 1881.

Judge Torrance got through the court docket at Wichita last week after a four weeks sedge and can now take a rest. His anxiety to make correct and just decisions in every case and to turn off business as rapidly as possible has kept him on a mental steam for a long time. He will now visit the lakes and recuperate.

Winfield Courier, August 11, 1881.

The amount refunded by the county officers having received excessive salaries, principal, and interest, is as follows.

                              Amount due and soon to be paid in: Torrance: $222.00.

Arkansas City Traveler, October 5, 1881.

Judge Torrance dismissed a juryman at El Dorado the other day, who stated that he was in the rebel army, and the Democrat, of that city, howls about it. The Judge did his duty under the constitution and laws of Kansas all the same. Sedan Times.

[DIED: FATHER OF HON. E. S. TORRANCE—REV. ADAM TORRANCE.]

Winfield Courier, October 27, 1881.

Rev. Adam Torrance, father of the judge of this Judicial district, Hon. E. S. Torrance, died at New Alexandria, Pennsylva­nia, on the 18th of this month in the 81st year of his age of inflammation of the bowels, after a sickness of one week.


He was of Scotch-Irish extraction, and was born in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, in 1801. He studied theology and was ordained as a minister of the Presbyterian church in 1832; was married the same year, and settled as the pastor of the Presbyterian church at Lexington, Ohio, where he preached about five years. He then removed to New Alexandria, Pa., where he served as the pastor of the Presbyterian church for more than 30 years.

Rev. Torrance was chaplain of the 11th Pennsylvania Reserve Corps in the war of the rebellion, and “stayed with the boys” in all the battles in which the regiment participated while he was in the service, which was about two years. He was a great lover of his country and inherited an intense patriotic feeling from his father, who was an officer in the war of the revolution.

The subject of this notice was a sound, clear headed think­er, and a true gentleman. His correct habits had preserved all his faculties in full symmetry and force until the day of his death. He was highly honored and beloved by all who knew him.

[BAR DOCKET DISTRICT COURT - COWLEY COUNTY.]

Winfield Courier, November 3, 1881.

                            Cowley County, Kansas, November A. D. 1881 Term.

Judge: Hon. E. S. Torrance.

County Attorney: F. S. Jennings.

Sheriff: A. T. Shenneman.

Clerk: E. S. Bedilion.

Winfield Courier, November 10, 1881.

Court is in session: the lambs and the lions are mingling together in harmony under the soothing influence of Judge Torrance’s presence. Among the lions we notice Henry H. Asp,

T. H. Soward, Frank Jennings, G. H. Buckman, D. C. Beach, O. M. Seward, J. E. Allen, Jas. O’Hare, S. D. Pryor, James McDermott, A. P. Johnson, A. H. Green, W. P. Hackney, A. B. Taylor, Lovell H. Webb, C. R. Mitchell, Joe Houston, Cal. Swarts, Charlie Eagan, and others. The list of lambs can be found in our Court docket of last week.

[Note: Newspapers were notorious for not getting names correctly. I believe that the next two items are about the same people seeking a divorce. The Traveler gives the name as “Sheeks.” The Courier gives the name as Rev. and Mrs. Skees. MAW]

Arkansas City Traveler, November 16, 1881.

The case of Sheeks vs. Sheeks, application for divorce, was heard by Judge Torrance last Saturday, the defendant not appear­ing. As the venerable plaintiff told his pathetic tale of domestic unhappiness, the boys guffawed internally, and made tremendous efforts to preserve order. Shenneman tried to appear stately and severe, but the attempt was a failure; the majestic scowl and the sickly grin, combined, produced a remarkable result upon his handsome features.

Greer, of the Courier, was there of course. He seemed to sniff the battle from afar. A lascivious grin stretched his mouth from ear to ear, while he industriously took notes. The divorce was granted.

Winfield Courier, November 17, 1881.


A nice little divorce came up before Judge Torrance Satur­day afternoon. The applicant for the dissolution of his matrimo­nial bonds was Rev. Mr. Skees. The difference seemed to be that Mrs. Skees cooked without taking the lids off the stove, and that Mr. Skees wouldn’t furnish one of her big boys money with which to buy tobacco. Mr. Skees is a Methodist minister, and an old gentleman. The case was a very sad one, and the audience could hardly keep down their emotion. Judge Torrance, seeing that the vast gulf existing between them could never be bridged, granted the applicant’s petition, and gave the lady $100 alimony.

Winfield Courier, November 17, 1881.

Judge Torrance delivered his charge to the jury in the Armstrong case Tuesday evening. It was a masterly document and set forth the law in the case clearly and in language that could not be misunderstood.

Cowley County Courant, November 17, 1881.

The Wellington Press of last week contains Judge Torrance’s charge to the jury, in the Allen Carter case. Carter was one of the cowboys who shot the young lady at Hunnewell this summer. The charge occupies three columns of the Press.

Arkansas City Traveler, November 23, 1881.

The Armstrong murder case was terminated by a verdict of “murder in the second degree,” and Judge Torrance sentenced the prisoner to fifteen years in the penitentiary. The evidence was only a revival of the facts given in the TRAVELER at the time of the murder, and therefor it is unnecessary to republish them here.

Cowley County Courant, November 24, 1881.

We find among Stenographer Knight’s reports of Judge Torrance’s charge to the jury in the trial of a gentleman charged with stealing a hog, last week, the following beautiful and expressive question: “Do you not think that far away amid the unknown worlds which drift through space and along whose track the drifting system of planets wheel and circle through countless ages, while man clothed in a little brief authority, cuts such fantastic tricks before high heaven as makes the angels weep, regarding himself as the center of the solar system, planning to frustrate the inimitable laws of nature, violating the prime and co-ordinate common law of universes, going behind the returns, as it were, trying to peer behind the veil, as we might say, prog­nosticating the prognosticatable, evading the axioms and by-laws which not only regulate worlds and their creation, but link the phantasmagoria of diagonal animalculae and cast broadcast the oleaginous incongruity of prehistoric usufruct?”

The defendant was acquitted by the jury.

Winfield Courier, November 24, 1881.

Court is grinding along slowly and will probably remain in session part of next week. Judge Torrance will leave the docket in better condition than it has been for eight years.

Winfield Courier, November 24, 1881.

The old case of Harris against Day, which was begun in this court about the time of the spread of Mohammedanism, which was, we think, in 719 A. D., has at last been dismissed, each party paying his own costs. It looks to us as if the foundations of the court would be shaky without the case of Harris vs. Day to sit on. However, Judge Torrance has had the nerve to dismiss it.

Winfield Courier, November 24, 1881.

The case of the State against A. H. Green for assault and battery on Rev. Tucker came up before Judge Torrance Tuesday evening. Mr. Green plead guilty and was fined $100, and costs.

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

Cowley County Courant, November 24, 1881.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[IMPORTANT DECISIONS: JUDGE TORRANCE.]

Cowley County Courant, Thursday, December 1, 1881.

The decision of Judge Torrance in the case of the Wheeler & Wilson manufacturing company against Peter Thompson and wife, is of great interest to the public generally, and we therefore give a synopsis of it: The defendant, Thompson, bought a Wheeler & Wilson sewing machine, No. 8, of their local agent, N. Wimber, who was then selling sewing machines for D. F. Best, of this city.

The price was $75; of this amount Thompson paid $30 down and gave two notes signed by himself and wife, one for $25 payable in six months, and the other for $20 payable in one year. Thompson claimed that Wimber warranted the machine to do good work, and at the trial offered to prove the warranty, and also to prove that the machine never did do good work and was worthless to him as a sewing machine.

This Judge Torrance refused to let him do, and decided that the notes made by Thompson and wife were the contract between them and the sewing machine company, and that nothing else could be proven as part of the contract except what was in those notes. That is, that though the agent might have warranted the machine when he sold it, still the company would not be liable for such warranty unless it was included in the written contract made at the time with the two notes in this instance. Purchasers of sewing machines, or anything else for that matter, with warranty, should see that the warranty is contained in the written contract if one is made, or else it may be void.

Cowley County Courant, December 1, 1881.


In the case of the Winfield Bank against F. M. Linscott and others, Judge Torrance made a decision which establishes a new rule, at least in this county. The Winfield Bank had judgment against Linscott and a decree of foreclosure of mortgage. At the sale the bank bid enough for the land to satisfy its claim, but George Heffron bid five cents more and it was sold to him. Now, Mr. Heffron asks the court to order that unpaid taxes, amounting to $40 or more, be paid out of the purchase money, and the court so ordered, which leaves the bank so much out. In both these cases the opposition attorneys threaten to go to the supreme court and reverse the decisions, but until they do, they will doubtless be regarded as the law in such cases.

[DIVORCE DAY IN DISTRICT COURT.]

Cowley County Courant, December 1, 1881.

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

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

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

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

[THE CALDWELL BANK MUDDLE.]

Cowley County Courant, December 8, 1881.


To begin at the beginning and tell the whole story would occupy this entire page. A synopsis is all we can give.

Rumors of the instability of the bank had been floating around for some two or three weeks, but the depositors, as a body, did not give them much credence, thinking all would be right, and having faith in the president, J. S. Danford, no runs were started. On Monday several drafts on New York came back protested. The owners of them went to the cashier, W. D. C. Smith, and inquired of him the reason of their return. Smith held out that there was only a temporary shortage on that bank, and that the same draft would be honored if sent to the bank on which it was drawn. Smith continued to hold out that every train running the entire week would bring from $5,000 to $20,000 in currency, and all depositors could then get their money if they would only wait.

It was evident that the M. & D. bank was very short of currency, the cashier prevailing upon many to take only $25 or $100 when they would present checks for sums well up in the hundreds. Many took the stand-off simply out of friendship for the bank, while many, wishing to lend confidence and aid to the bank, would go down into their pockets and deposit their last cent, which would be thankfully received by the slick cashier of the concern, with the assurance of a speedy return of all money. The object was to gain time. Deposits were received up to within twenty minutes of three o’clock Saturday afternoon, while the cashier, packing up the securities of the bank, prepared to jump the train at 3 o’clock. Fred Dewman, a friend of Danford, from Osage City, came down Saturday on the noon train, accompanied Smith in his flight, and took the securities on with him to a place that the creditors know not of. Smith got off at Welling­ton and met Danford. Danford deeded the bank building to Major Hood, Smith refusing to sign the deed until two thousand dollars was given him. His signature does not appear on the deed, so it is safe to suppose that he did not get the stamps.

Smith and Danford left Wellington in a private conveyance Sunday morning, and drove to Wichita, where a telegram was sent by Sheriff Thrall to have them arrested on a warrant sworn out by I. B. Gilmore, who happened to be in Wellington and learned of the flight.

The sheriff of Sedgwick County started to Winfield Sunday evening with the prisoners to have their preliminary tried before Judge Torrance, but telegraphed Thrall to meet him at Mulvane. The party from here got to Mulvane before the Thrall party arrived, but a telegraphic warrant had been served upon them before the Caldwell officers arrived.

The party came to Wellington, where they were met by a delegation of creditors from this point. Talks were had but nothing could be got out of Danford. They were arraigned before Squire King, and $50,000 bonds required of them for their appear­ance on the Gilmore warrant, which they claimed they would give on Tuesday. On the afternoon train a delegation of nearly one hundred arrived, repudiated the action of the first party, and demanded that the prisoners be taken back to Caldwell or the full amount of the deposits paid at once. The depositors were not satisfied, and Mr. Rhodes and posse proceeded to gather in the sheriff and prisoners. A special train was secured from Wichita, which arrived about 12 o’clock Monday night, on which the prison­ers were brought to this city.

A meeting of the creditors was held in the Hall Tuesday morning. Sim Donaldson was chosen Chairman and Charles Hassard Secretary.

A Committee on Resolutions was appointed, report of same submitted, and adopted, and committee discharged.


The following preambles and resolutions were unanimously adopted.

WHEREAS, The Merchants and Drovers’ Bank of Caldwell, Kansas, has suspended without any visible assets whatever where­with to pay the claims of its creditors; and,

WHEREAS, The said creditors, having met to consider the ways and means to secure their claims against said bank and its officers.

Resolved, That it is the sense of this meeting that all the securities and moneys of said bank have been fraudulently appro­priated and made way with by its president, J. S. Danford, and by his direction and connivance.

Resolved, That the said creditors demand a full and complete showing of the status of said bank, and full and complete settle­ment and liquidation of all their several claims; and that if immediate payment cannot be made, that the said creditors be secured by ample securities, and that immediately.

Resolved, That we hold each and all the officers of said bank strictly accountable for their acts and deeds in the manage­ment of said bank, and that they be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for any violation of their said duties.

Resolved, That we declare it our firm determination to make use of all lawful means to make said J. S. Danford settle and liquidate his liabilities caused by his fraudulent practices in the management of said Merchants and Drovers’ Bank.

Resolved, That, if deemed necessary, the following attorneys be retained by the creditors of said bank for the prosecution of all claims and demands of these creditors against the Merchants and Drovers’ Bank and its several officers, namely: Mr. Thomas George and Mr. Quigley, of Wellington, and Mr. L. M. Lange, of Caldwell, and that a committee be appointed to raise funds for the carrying into execution the resolution, and that a pro rata assessment be made on all creditors for that purpose. And, finally,

Resolved, That we demand that the prisoners, J. S. Danford and W. D. C. Smith, President and Secretary of said Merchants and Drovers’ Bank, be immediately turned over and delivered to Constable Rhodes, who first legally arrested the said J. S. Danford and W. D. C. Smith, by virtue of a warrant issued by J. D. Kelly, Esq., of Caldwell, Kansas, and that said Rhodes keep the said prisoners in his custody until they are disposed of in due form.

                                        WM. CRIMBLE. Chairman of Committee.

A committee was appointed to wait upon Mr. Danford and have him make a statement to the creditors.

Danford came into the meeting and said, in substance, that he did not know what the assets of the bank were, but could produce the securities carried off by Smith and Denman; also, that the securities were carried off for the purpose of giving the depositors an equal show at the general divide, and avoid attaching creditors.

A committee was then appointed by the chair to wait upon Danford in the interests of the creditors, and report at 7 o’clock to the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned till 2 o’clock p.m.

Judge Story came in on the noon train Tuesday in the interest of Major Hood. The committee appointed to settle with Danford submitted a report to the meeting at 7 o’clock, which, after a considerable debate, was at once adopted.


The committee’s report was Danford’s proposition, the substance of which is as follows: Danford gave his individual note for $56,000, secured by $32,500 [?] in notes, etc., of the M. D. Bank; the bank building at $10,000; half a section adjoining the city, valued at $2,000; all his individual and the M. & D. Bank’s real estate, etc., in Sumner County the value of which is known at the present; when the collateral is exhausted, the balance to be paid by him. This proposition was accepted by the creditors.

A committee was appointed to take charge of the affair. John G. Woods was elected trustee by the depositors.

The committee went to Wichita yesterday morning to examine the notes and bank securities, and had not returned yesterday evening.

Dr. Tanner was arrested in Wellington Tuesday night and brought to this city. He made affidavit to the fact that the drug store in the corner room of the bank building had been sold to him without a consideration and was to be returned to Danford when the trouble was over. A bill of sale of the property was given to him.

Dr. Sinex states that he is simply employed by Mr. Danford to run the store on a salary of $75 per month; that he has no money invested in it.

Fred Denman stated that he was acting as a friend of Danford, and carried off the money and securities of the bank to a place of safety.

Samuel Berry was placed under arrest yesterday. Caldwell Post.

Winfield Courier, December 8, 1881.

The four weeks session of the District Court closed Satur­day. Judge Torrance crowded an immense amount of work into the session and the docket is cleared.

Winfield Courier, December 8, 1881.

Judge Torrance has sustained County Attorney Jennings in rulings that will save the county thousands of dollars. One of them was the clause which most county attorneys in the state construe as requiring the county to pay the defendant’s costs in criminal cases where acquittal is secured. When bills for such costs were presented to the commissioners, Attorney Jennings advised them that the statute did not require their payment by the county. They refused to allow the bills and they were carried up. Last week the cases came up for trial and Judge Torrance held that Mr. Jennings was right in refusing to endorse the bills. This is quite a feather in Frank’s cap.

Arkansas City Traveler, December 14, 1881.

Judge Torrance, at the last term of court, did what has not occurred for some time past, viz., made a clean sweep of all cases and left the docket clear.

Cowley County Courant, December 22, 1881.

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

Winfield Courier, December 29, 1881.


Judge Torrance spent Christmas with his family, but returned to Chautauqua County where he is holding court, Tuesday. He has been holding court now for seventeen successive weeks, part of the time holding evening sessions. After the Chautauqua County court is over, he will have a vacation until February.

Winfield Courier, January 5, 1882.

The attachment on Allison’s office and [TWO WORDS???] was dissolved today by Judge Torrance in the petition being insufficient.

Cowley County Courant, January 12, 1882.

The libel suit, brought against W. M. Allison, of the Wellingtonian,  by the County Attorney of Sumner County, was heard before Judge Torrance at Chambers yesterday. Mr. Allison’s attorney moved to dissolve the attachment on the ground of the insufficiency of the plaintiff’s affidavits, which motion the Judge sustained. Mr. Willsie, the plaintiff, will now have to commence a new action of attachment.

[Note: the Cowley County Courant called him “Charley McClain.” Turned out his name was really “McLain.” Have followed this case through to clarify items stated. The next six items pertain to Charles McLain.]

Arkansas City Traveler, January 11, 1882.

Charley McLain, arrested last Thursday in Winfield, for theft, by Mr. Matlack, of this city, for whom he had been clerk­ing, now languishes in durance vile awaiting the April term of Court.

Cowley County Courant, January 12, 1882.

The gentleman who is furnishing food for the lawyers and Judge Buckman’s court this week, gives his name as Charles McLain, who has been clerking in a store at Arkansas City for the past few weeks for a man named S. Matlack. When he was paid off a few days ago, Matlack discovered that a lot of fine gloves were missing, and notified the officers here where Charley was having a social drunk on account of Christmas coming but once a year. The youth of about thirty summers was promptly arrested Thursday afternoon, and held for trial the next morning at 10 o’clock. The officers searched his boarding house and found two valises and a large paper bag, in which he had stored away about $80 worth of various kinds of goods, such as laces, gloves, neckties, satins, etc., many of the articles bearing the cost mark of Mr. Matlack. When the prisoner was arraigned Thursday evening and asked by the court what he had to say for himself, he replied that they would find out he had not stolen anything; that he had been drunk for a couple of days, to which offense he would plead guilty. He was informed that he was not on trial for drunkenness, but theft. It was suggested to the prisoner by a bystander that he had better plead guilty to the charge of larceny, and take back the insertion that he had been drunk.

Cowley County Courant, January 12, 1882.

Charley McLain, 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.

Winfield Courier, January 12, 1882.


Charles McLain, a fast young man from Arkansas City, was brought before Justice Buckman Thursday evening, charged with purloining a lot of goods from S. Matlack, for whom he had been clerking. His trunk was searched and many articles bearing the cost mark of Mr. Matlack were found. The thief had been on a three days spree here. He was bound over and is now in jail.

Arkansas City Traveler, January 18, 1882.

Charles McLain, the thieving and drunken dry goods clerk recently arrested at Winfield, went before his honor, Judge Torrance, in Chambers, and plead guilty to the charge of stealing goods, and was sentenced to one year in the penitentiary.

Winfield Courier, January 19, 1882.

We are sorry Judge Torrance sent young McLain to Leavenworth. A friend told us yesterday that “he would take everything that came along.” It would be a good plan to have a man of that kind around and when the small pox comes along, let him take all there is of it.

                                   [End of items pertaining to Charles McLain.]

Cowley County Courant, January 19, 1882.

His Honor, Judge Torrance, in company with Messrs. Campbell, Hackney, and Henderson, took dinner at Chautauqua Springs last Sunday, in consequence of which Ginn, the popular hotel man of that place, has been compelled to make an assignment to his creditors. They ate him “clean out.” Sedan Times.

Winfield Courier, February 2, 1882.

DIED. It is with pain that we record the death of Mr. Thos. G. Ticer, which occurred at his home on Saturday evening, January 28th. Mr. Ticer came here with his family some three years ago, and established himself in the Loan and Insurance business. He had not been here long when ill health compelled him to leave here, and he went on the road hoping that the change would prove beneficial; but after trying Colorado and New Mexico, his disease took the form of consumption and he at last rejoined his family, and came back to die. He was surrounded during his last illness by wife and children, brothers and sisters, and sympathizing friends, each trying to brighten his few remaining hours on earth. The funeral occurred on Monday morning at ten o’clock and was conducted by the Masonic lodge, the members appearing in regalia, with appropriate emblems. The Episcopal choir sang some beautiful hymns in their sweetest manner, and Mr. Platter’s comforting remarks did much to ease the pains of parting with the dead. The pall bearers were Messrs. E. S. Torrance, A. D. Hendricks, Dr. Cooper, M. G. Troup, McCune, and J. S. Mann.

Cowley County Courant, February 23, 1882.

The Supreme Court has affirmed the ruling of Judge Torrance in the case of G. P. Aikman vs. School District No. 16, Butler County, that teachers cannot be hired except at regularly called meetings of the board.

Winfield Courier, February 23, 1882.

It is reported that the present owners of the Torrance mine near Socorro, New Mexico, have been offered a million dollars for the mine and have refused. This mine was first opened by some young men from Torrance in this county, and therefore Judge Torrance might be considered a grandfather to the mine.

Cowley County Courant, March 16, 1882.

Judge Torrance sentenced G. W. Scott to the penitentiary for seven years, W. H. Harvey for three years, and J. E. Burkholder for five years, at El Dorado last week.


Cowley County Courant, March 30, 1882.

A good joke is now being revived on our fellow townsman, W. P. Hackney, since he is acknowledged to be one of the most prominent applicants for a place upon the next Kansas delegation in Congress. The yarn runs thus.

Some several years ago Will went to Kansas City in company with Judge Torrance, Frank Williams, Bob Mitchell, and a couple other gentlemen who have passed into history. The party put up at a fine hotel notwithstanding they were not at that time accustomed to such things. The landlord seeing they were from the rural regions, stowed them away in the third or fourth story, saying when he left them that should they want anything they could ring the bell, and should any of them wish to come down­stairs, if they did not feel like returning the way they had ascended, to take the elevator. It wasn’t long of course until our Senator concluded he would take in the town (he had not been around as much then as he has since), and ringing the bell, a boy appeared at the door of their room, asked what they wanted, and was informed by Hackney that he wanted the elevator. The boy was puzzled for an instant, but recovering himself took in the situation, and asked very honestly what the Senator wanted with it. Seeing he was in deep water, but determined not to give himself away, Will yelled out with more force than eloquence: “Why, you d__n fool, I want to see how it is made!” The boy ran back downstairs, the companions of the Senator smiled, and when the party went out to town, they used the old-fashioned winding stairways. Of course, Hackney now says this is all a lie, but McDonald, his law partner, says he believes every word of it, and that he thinks Will wanted the elevator upon which to ride into Congress. If any of the Wichita papers take advantage of this scrap of history, the editors will be promptly dispatched to that home from which few weary travelers return.

Winfield Courier, April 6, 1882.

Judge Torrance adjourned his court at Wichita last Saturday, and went to Wellington Tuesday morning to open court at that place.

Winfield Courier, April 6, 1882.

Judge Torrance adjourned court at Wichita Saturday, came home and spent Sunday with his family, and left Monday evening for Wellington, where court is now in session. This is the busiest time of all the year with the judge.

Cowley County Courant, April 13, 1882.

We like Frank Jennings, but he is now subject to no little joking on account of the manner in which the Courier slobbered all over him for having given an opinion and having it sustained by the Commissioners, and Judge Torrance, as well, to the effect that the officers were not entitled to their fees in criminal cases, when the defense was acquitted. The officers interested did not feel inclined to accept the opinion as final, appealed to the Supreme Court, and that tribunal having reversed the deci­sion, the boys will now get their fees and the county will be called upon to put up a few dollars costs. It will now be in order for the Courier to switch, declare the County Attorney ought to have known better, and give him a genuine drubbing, just for luck. Not in earnest, of course, but simply as a matter of form. Of course, Frank was a brilliant attorney when he objected to the allowing of these claims; but now that the Supreme Court says he was wrong, former comments do not go, and the Courier must right itself or not be the champion of the taxpayer.


Winfield Courier, April 13, 1882.

In the case taken to the Supreme Court, the decision of Judge Torrance and County Attorney Jennings was reversed, so that now the county must pay the costs of criminal cases whether conviction is secured or not.

Cowley County Courant, April 13, 1882.

Judge Torrance has issued a new set of court rules for the Thirteenth Judicial District, which have been printed and bound in neat form. These new rules prescribe that on the third day of the term the court will make a new assignment. All parties interested will be required to take notice, and attorneys in cases in court are expected to be present and assist the court in making the assignments.

[SOME COURIER CLIPS.]

Arkansas City Traveler, April 19, 1882.

In the case taken to the Supreme Court, the decision of Judge Torrance and County Attorney, Jennings, was reversed, so that now the county must pay the costs of criminal cases whether conviction is secured or not.

Mr. Tansey has refused to give up his docket to Mr. Soward, claiming to hold over under his certificate, which was issued for two years. Judge Torrance will get a docket and hold court anyway. Such a proceeding is somewhat extraordinary on the part of Mr. Tansey.

Winfield Courier, April 27, 1882.

An additional venire of eighteen jurymen was ordered by Judge Torrance Tuesday morning. The following gentlemen were drawn: H. M. Branson, Windsor; Alfred Hightower, Dexter; W. W. McDonough, Otter; Wm. Rouzee, Beaver; G. M. Moore, Walnut; J. R. Scott, Tisdale; Wm. Shrieves, Spring Creek; A. H. Miller, Liberty; Thos R. Carson, Richland; Geo. Homer, Otter; Thos. Baird, Bolton; Frank Weakley, Walnut; C. W. Frith, Liberty; J. H. Titus, Bolton; J. S. Mohler, Windsor; J. R. Tobin, Spring Creek; Pearson Coe, Richland; Thos. Cooley, Maple.

Cowley County Courant, April 27, 1882.

When Cowley County was on her knees to Sumner County, asking them to assist in the nomination of Hon. E. S. Torrance for Judge, the position he so fitly fills now, Sumner gave our people a sickly smile, said no, and did all in their power to nominate a distinguished renegade by the name of Judge Adams. Torrance is as pure a man as can be found in the district, while Adams was corrupt, and the Sumner County people knew it, but they scorned our appeals and stuck to their old fraud with the tenacity of blood hounds. That is past and gone now. Torrance succeeded despite the unfriendly opposition, and Sumner County comes smilingly, asking our support for a Secretary of State, a State Treasurer, and there is no telling how many other places they will wish to take in.

Cowley County Courant, April 27, 1882.

Judge Torrance was taken sick at Wellington last Monday afternoon, and compelled to return home Tuesday morning. He is better though, now, having breathed the wholesome Winfield air a few days.

Winfield Courier, May 4, 1882.

The case of Nommsen, for shaving on Sunday, came up before Judge Torrance Tuesday. The Judge fined Mr. Nommsen $1 and costs.


Cowley County Courant, May 11, 1882.

Dr. H. L. Wells was arrested last Saturday, charged with threatening the life of W. P. Hackney. He was bound over by Judge Torrance in the sum of $500.00, conditioned to keep the peace toward all mankind, and especially towards Mr. Hackney.

Cowley County Courant, May 11, 1882.

Mr. John Wilson, the barber, some time ago complained of Ferdinand Nommsen for keeping open his (Nommsen’s) barber shop and shaving on Sunday. The case was tried by Judge Torrance, and held by him to be a violation of the statute, whereupon Mr. Nommsen was fined one dollar and costs, amounting in all to some twenty-five dollars. Mr. Wilson has shaved on Sunday all his life, probably, until a short time ago, when as a matter of conscience, he quit. He still, however, stretches his conscience enough to let his two partners run the shop, of which he is sole owner, and divided the Sunday profits with them. Mr. Wilson will not claim that he made the complaint because of his great rever­ence for the law, nor a desire to enforce Sabbath observance. His object was to prevent the rival shop gaining a day on him in business. While Mr. Wilson had a perfect right to make the complaint, the motive that prompted it was wholly bad.

Winfield Courier, May 18, 1882.

Judge Torrance granted Dr. Wells a new trial and his case will come up again at the next term of court.

Winfield Courier, June 8, 1882.

Judge Torrance left Tuesday morning for Howard, where he holds court this week and next.

Winfield Courier, June 8, 1882.

Judge E. S. Torrance returned home Saturday from a trip in Sumner County, and convened court Monday morning, that being the day to which it had adjourned. Considerable business was disposed of. The most important case tried was the divorce suit brought against John Ireton. The court allowed $50 for attorney’s fee and $50 for temporary alimony, and continued the further hearing of the case until the 26th of this month, when another adjourned term will be held.

Winfield Courier, June 29, 1882.

Judge Torrance held court Monday forenoon and granted a divorce in the Ireton case. Mrs. Ireton gets $300 alimony. Court sits again July 5th.

Winfield Courier, August 3, 1882.

Judge Torrance has built a neat office near his residence and last week moved his fine library thereto. The Judge will now be “at home” when he isn’t away.

Winfield Courier, August 17, 1882.

Judge Torrance, in addition to a new office which is just done, has improved his house and grounds by judicious work.

Winfield Courier, September 28, 1882.

Judge Torrance spent Sunday at home.

Winfield Courier, October 19, 1882.


Judge Torrance closed his term of court at Wichita Saturday and was at home with his family Sunday and Monday. In the evening of Monday he went over to Wellington to hold a term of court.

Arkansas City Traveler, November 1, 1882.

Judge Torrance, of the Thirteenth Judicial District, has rendered a decision in an appeal case, which if sustained by the supreme court, will render null and void our present herd law.

Walnut Valley Times.

Winfield Courier, November 30, 1882.

Judge Torrance will hold court Thanksgiving day. He is bound to push matters if there is any opportunity to do so.

[COLGATE CASE.]

Winfield Courier, November 30, 1882.

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.

Next two items: Torrance’s sister (Wife of Rev. Dr. Wallace of Old Mexico) visiting with Torrance had never seen an Indian...

Winfield Courier, November 30, 1882.

Judge Torrance entertained Man-walking-above, Crow-dog, and another Cheyenne Indian at his residence Monday. His sister, who is visiting with him, had never seen an Indian, and the Judge, after many inducements, got them down to his house. Man-walking-above insisted that he had holes in his moccasins and was therefore not presentable.

Winfield Courier, November 30, 1882.

Rev. Dr. Wallace, late resident in Old Mexico, with his wife is visiting Judge Torrance. He filled the pulpit at the Baptist Church Sunday evening and delivered a magnificent discourse. Dr. Wallace’s wife is a sister of Judge Torrance.

Hackney presents proposal to change the 18th Judicial District. It would include Butler, Sedgwick, Harper, Barbour, and Kingman counties, some of the territory taken from the 9th and 13th Judicial Districts....

Winfield Courier, January 18, 1883.

                                      SENATOR HACKNEY TO THE FRONT.

The eighteenth judicial district, as proposed by Senator Hackney, includes the counties of Butler, Sedgwick, Harper, Barbour, and Kingman, the territory being taken from the Ninth and Thirteenth districts. This would leave Judge Torrance with a district plenty large enough, reducing Judge Peters’ old district to a reasonable size. In the event that the state is not redistricted, Senator Hackney’s bill should become a law. It was recommended for passage by the senate judiciary committee.

Winfield Courier, January 25, 1883.

Judge Torrance held an adjourned term of court here last week, and cleared up several old cases. He also granted several divorces.

Winfield Courier, February 1, 1883.

                                        WINFIELD DON’T WANT SALOONS.


On looking over carefully the list of signatures on the petition to Hackney, we find a considerable number of names of persons who live in the country, and many more whom nobody knows. We find only 101 names, less than half of those on the petition, who are known as citizens of Winfield. Less than half of these probably understood what they were signing, and are in favor of saloons. It is presumable that the originators got all the names of prominent Winfield men they could by any kind of representations; and, considering all these things, the petition is not so very formidable after all. But it is enough to give our city a bad name, and give a severe stab to the cause of prohibition. The Kansas City Journal’s Topeka correspondence says that the names of all the prominent men and business firms of Winfield are found on that petition, except one bank and one hardware store. We notice that the following Winfield firms and names are conspicuously absent from the petition.

                                        E. S. Torrance did not sign the petition.

Besides all the clergymen of the city and more than four hundred other businessmen and voters of the city, it does not show up big when we remember that but a very small proportion of the 650 voters in the city signed the petition.

Winfield Courier, February 8, 1883.

Judge Torrance left for Pennsylvania Tuesday, called there by news of the serious illness of his mother.

Winfield Courier, March 22, 1883.

Judge Torrance has not yet rendered his decision in the Colgate case. It ought to be a good one when it comes.

Winfield Courier, March 29, 1883.

Judge Torrance and J. C. Fuller talk of erecting brick business houses on the lots adjoining Green’s office.

Winfield Courier, April 12, 1883.

Judge Torrance and J. C. Fuller will begin the erection of two brick buildings on Main Street next to George Miller’s meat shop at once.

Torrance’s mother passes away...

Winfield Courier, April 26, 1883.

Judge Torrance received a telegram at eleven o’clock Tuesday conveying the sad intelligence of the death of his mother. He was holding court at Wellington, but dropped everything, took a carriage and drove to this place in time to take the three o’clock train for the East. In consequence of this, court will probably not convene until next Thursday and only then under a Judge pro tem.

Winfield Courier, May 3, 1883.

Court convenes again Friday in anticipation of Judge Torrance’s return.

Winfield Courier, May 3, 1883.

Court met Monday and Geo. H. Buckman was elected Judge Pro tem after which an adjournment was had. Judge Torrance will probably be home this week and go on with the business next week.

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 Winfield 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.

Winfield Courier, May 10, 1883.

Court opened Monday morning at 9 o’clock with Judge Torrance on the bench. County Attorney Jennings entered a nolle in all the doctor cases. The Manny case was put on for trial and a jury empaneled. Wm. Rose was granted a divorce from his wife.

Arkansas City Traveler, Wednesday, May 16, 1883.

District Court is in session, Judge Torrance presiding.

Winfield Courier, May 17, 1883.

Proceedings have been inaugurated by J. Wade McDonald, attorney, to condemn the water in the river above the Winfield Mills for the purposes of the City Waterworks, and Judge Torrance has appointed to appraise the damages R. F. Burden, G. L. Gale, and W. M. Sleeth.

Winfield Courier, May 17, 1883.

                                                    The Old Settlers’ Meeting.

The Vernon Pioneers’ annual meeting occurs on Thursday, May 31st, at Riverside Park. A basket picnic will be held and speeches, song, and a good time generally will be the program. Judge Torrance will be one of the speakers. Everybody is invited. Come with your baskets and help make it a joyful occasion. No old settler should fail to be present.

                         J. W. MILLSPAUGH, President; H. H. MARTIN, Secretary.

Winfield Courier, May 24, 1883.

                                                  A COMPLETE SURPRISE.


Sixty-five ladies and gentlemen of the best citizens of Winfield joined in a plot last Wednesday, May 16th, to surprise D. A. Millington, editor of the Winfield COURIER, and his wife at their residence, on the thirty-fifth anniversary of their marriage, and were completely successful. It was raining quite briskly all the evening with no prospect of a “let-up.” Between 8 and 9 o’clock we were quietly looking over our late exchanges; our wife was busy in household affairs in a gray dress in which she felt some delicacy about receiving company, when we found our house suddenly taken possession of by J. C. Fuller and lady, J. Wade McDonald, Mrs. J. E. Platter, C. A. Bliss, Dr. C. C. Green and lady, J. P. Short, Geo. Rembaugh and lady, A. T. Spotswood, Miss Jennie Hane, E. S. Torrance, Mrs. John Lowry, Mrs. I. L. Millington, E. P. Hickok and lady, and others. The greater portion of the party lived more distant and were still waiting for the rain to slack up.

Winfield Courier, May 24, 1883.

Eugene A. Millard came down from Burden Monday to convince Judge Torrance that he knew too much for a juryman and just enough for a pedagogue. He was permitted to return to his school teaching.

Winfield Courier, June 7, 1883.

                                                OLD SETTLERS’ REUNION.

                                      At Riverside Park, Thursday, May 31, 1883.

The Old Settlers’ Association of Vernon Township was called to order by the President, J. W. Millspaugh. Minutes of the last meeting read by the Secretary, H. H. Martin, and approved.

On motion of J. H. Werden, the Association of Old Settlers of Vernon Township was dissolved, and an association of the Old Settlers of Cowley County organized.

Election of officers for the ensuing year are as follows.

E. S. Torrance, president; J. W. Millspaugh, vice-president; Jacob Nixon, secretary and treasurer.

Motion prevailed that the president appoint an executive committee of one from each township. The president appointed as such committee the following.

Beaver: Lucius Walton; Cedar: D. M. Patton; Creswell: I. H. Bonsall; Dexter: Jesse Hines; Fairview: Wm. White; Harvey: Robt. Strother; Liberty: Justus Fisher; Maple: Adam Walck; Ninnescah: A. A. Jackson; Omnia: W. H. Gilliard; Otter: Daniel Kantz; Pleasant Valley: A. H. Broadwell; Richland: N. J. Larkin; Rock: Reuben Booth; Sheridan: E. Shriver; Silver Creek: Harvey Smith; Silver Dale: W. H. H. Maris; Spring Creek: J. B. Callison; Tisdale: E. P. Young; Vernon: J. E. Dunn; Walnut: H. C. Loomis; Windsor: Mc D. Stapleton; Winfield City: J. P. Short.

Motion by Mr. H. H. Martin that all residents that came to this county prior to June 1st, 1875, be eligible to membership in the organization, carried. President instructed to appoint a committee of three on program for next meeting.

President appointed as such committee: Wm. P. Hackney, C. M. Scott, and S. M. Fall.

On motion, the 1st Tuesday in September next was appointed as the first regular meeting.

Interesting personal reminiscences of early times in the county were given by Messrs. Millspaugh, Murphy, Hawkins, Bonnewell, Kinney, Werden, Schwantes, and the president.

Adjourned to meet at 10 a.m., 1st Tuesday in September next.

                          E. S. TORRANCE, President. JACOB NIXON, Secretary.


Arkansas City Traveler, June 6, 1883.

Colgate, who has achieved notoriety in connection with the burning of Bliss & Wood’s mill at Winfield was last Monday sentenced by Judge Torrance to three years hard labor. This will put Colgate where we think he will do the most good.

Winfield Courier, June 7, 1883.

                                                          The Colgate Case.

After a two weeks’ trial, the Colgate case was submitted to the jury at 10 o’clock last Thursday. After being out two days and a night, a verdict of guilty was returned. On Monday a motion for new trial was argued without avail and Monday evening Judge Torrance pronounced the sentence, which was that he be confined in the penitentiary at hard labor for a term of three years. Both the prosecution and defense were conducted with a care and vigor rarely displayed, and every inch of ground hotly contested.

Winfield Courier, June 21, 1883.

Senator Hackney has put the building taken from Judge Torrance’s Main Street lot on his Ninth Avenue lot.

Fuller and Torrance putting up building 125 deep, two stories high, on Main Street...

Winfield Courier, June 21, 1883.

The Fuller and Torrance business block now going up on Main Street is to be one hundred and twenty-five feet deep and two stories high. The plans were executed by Irv. Randall and are beauties in form and finish.

Winfield Courier, June 21, 1883.

Judge Torrance held a short special session of court Monday morning, and a motion in the McCommon assignment case was argued and overruled.

The court also ordered a transcript of the evidence in the Colgate case.

J. Wade McDonald was appointed guardian adlitem of R. F. Mansfield in the case of Josephine E. Mansfield against Hattie P. Mansfield and others. Another short term will be held on July 12th.

Winfield Courier, July 5, 1883.

The street commissioner is doing some long-needed work on Ninth Avenue, near the Courthouse. The street at that point is being filled up with dirt from the Torrance-Fuller building.

Third child born to Torrance: a girl...

Winfield Courier, July 19, 1883.

BIRTH. Judge Torrance has a new girl at his house—a little girl born last week.

Winfield Courier, July 19, 1883.

Judge Torrance held a special session of court Monday for the trial of civil cases. The case of Carpenter against Winfield Township was tried. It is the case growing out of the old Winfield Township scrip. Senator Sluss appeared for the defense and Jennings and Troup for the plaintiffs.

Arkansas City Traveler, August 1, 1883.

Judge E. S. Torrance and A. T. Stewart, of Winfield, were in the city on Monday last.

Winfield Courier, August 2, 1883.


At a special term of court Monday, Judge Torrance rendered judgment in the case of Carpenter vs. Old Winfield Township. The judgment is assessed against the township for the full amount of scrip and interest and orders it collected from the real estate embraced in the territory that was formerly Old Winfield Township.

Winfield Courier, August 16, 1883.

Judge Torrance and family left for Colorado Springs Wednesday. The Judge will remain two weeks and will return in time to convene the regular term of court at Wellington. Mrs. Torrance will remain during the hot months.

Arkansas City Traveler, August 29, 1883.

                                                       Old Settlers, Attention!

                      SECRETARY’S OFFICE, OLD SETTLERS’ ASSOCIATION.

The first annual meeting of all the old settlers of Cowley County will take place in Winfield on the first Tuesday, the 4th day of September, 1883. All old settlers of Cowley County are most cordially invited. E. S. TORRANCE, President. JACOB NIXON, Secretary.

Winfield Courier, September 27, 1883.

The Torrance-Fuller buildings are nearly ready for the roof and are expected to be furnished in a few weeks. J. S. Mann talks of occupying one of them with his clothing establishment.

Winfield Courier, October 11, 1883.

The Torrance-Fuller block is all enclosed and ready for the roof. The front is exceedingly handsome.

[TORRANCE COMPLAINS ABOUT SHERIFF GARY.]

Arkansas City Traveler, October 24, 1883.

Judge Torrance last Friday gave our most efficient (?) Democratic sheriff a very forcible hint to look after his business while he held the office. Asking the officers of the court to remain after adjournment, he told them he had become tired of performing the duties of both judge and sheriff in this county; and that hereafter if the sheriff could not find time to attend to his business, he would appoint one that could. At last account he had not found that worthy Democratic official.

[POLITICS.]

Winfield Courier, November 1, 1883.

Note: The entire front page for the most part is full of items from the Traveler and Burden Enterprise...re Politics.

The Traveler attacked Gary in three separate items:

Item No. 1:

“Why is it that the moment the republican party refuses to vote for a dirty republican and kicks him out of the party the democrats at once take him up and nominate him for an office? S. G. Gary was defeated in Mahaska County, Iowa, for treasurer, on the republican ticket, when that party had 1,200 majority, and then he turns democrat and comes to Kansas.”

Item No. 2:


“Mr. Gary, Democratic sheriff of this county, has made arrangements with one Keiser to insert his (Mr. Gary’s) name on the Republican ticket in place of Mr. McIntire. This instance has reference to the other voting precincts in this county, and too much care cannot be taken by the Republicans to examine their tickets before voting them. Careful attention will frustrate such despicable fraud, and beat the poor fools.”

Item No. 3:

“Judge Torrance last Friday gave our most efficient (?) Democratic sheriff a very forcible hint to look after his business while he held the office. Asking the officers of the court to remain after adjournment, he told them he had become tired of performing the duties of both judge and sheriff in this county, and that hereafter if the sheriff could not find time to attend to his business, he would appoint one that could. At last accounts he had not found that worthy Democratic official.”

Winfield Courier, November 1, 1883.

J. S. Mann is doing a land office business in clearing out his Clothing and Men’s Furnishing Goods preparatory to moving into the new Torrance & Fuller building. Now is the time to buy your winter clothing at low prices.

Winfield Courier, November 1, 1883.

Property is selling rapidly in the east part of the city. Judge Torrance purchased a ten acre tract of Mr. Howland for twenty-five hundred dollars. Henry E. Asp has sold his house in the Howland addition, and nine lots have changed hands in the Courier Place, since Monday.

Winfield Courier, November 8, 1883.

                                                              Annual Hunt.

The grand annual hunt of the Winfield Sportsmen’s Club came off last Thursday. The captains were Jas. H. Vance and Jas. McLain. There were twelve hunters on each side, but several could not go, leaving ten on Capt. Vance’s side and only eight on Capt. McLain’s. The count was as follows:

Jas. Vance, Captain: 1,520; Frank Clark: 1,910; J. S. Hunt: 1,835; Kyle McClung: 1,130; J. Cochran: 1,855; W. P. Beaumont: 1,010; Frank Lockwood: 370; A. T. Spotswood: 205; A. S. Davis: 1,125.

                                          TOTAL FOR VANCE TEAM: 10,970.

Jas. McLain, Captain: 1,230; J. N. Harter: 1,120; C. C. Black: 715; G. W. Prater: 970; Fred Whiting: 1,245; Ezra Meech: 3,420; Judge E. S. Torrance: 865; Wilson Foster: 1,380.

                                         TOTAL FOR McLAIN TEAM: 10,945.

Capt. Vance’s side having made 25 points the most was declared the victor.

The annual Banquet and presentation of the medals was held at the Brettun Saturday evening. It was an elegant affair and one of the most enjoyable of the season. In a neat and appropriate speech, Mr. C. C. Black presented the gold medal, awarded for the highest score, to Mr. Ezra Meech, who responded to the toast “How did you catch ’em?” with a full description of his days report and the methods he so successfully employed in bagging the festive little “cotton tail.” Next came the presentation of the tin medal, by M. G. Troup, which was done in that gentleman’s happiest vein. The recipient, A. T. Spotswood, responded in a short speech. After other toasts the company adjourned for business at which it was decided to hunt again with the same sides, on November 22nd. This is the third annual hunt of the club, and has been more successful than its predecessors.

Winfield Courier, November 15, 1883.


The sidewalk being put down in front of the Torrance-Fuller brick block is one of the finest in the city. It is being laid with flagstones eight by twelve feet in size and eight inches thick. The stones are from Moore & Sons’ quarry.

Winfield Courier, November 22, 1883.

The plastering on the Fuller-Torrance block is being done by John Craine. It is a big job  and in his hands will be done well.

Winfield Courier, November 22, 1883.

Dr. W. T. Wright has rented the two front rooms in the Torrance-Fuller brick, upstairs, and will fit up a handsome office therein. The Doctor’s present quarters are much too small for his immense practice.

Winfield Courier, November 29, 1883.

Dr. Taylor discovered an incipient fire on Tenth Avenue last week that might have proved very destructive. Someone had thrown hot ashes out in the alley running from 10th to 9th Avenues near the rear of Hendrick & Wilson’s hardware store. The live coals in the ashes ignited some loose trash and the whole was just ready to break into a blaze when the Doctor passed by and gave the alarm. Had it got started, the row of wooden buildings between the Torrance-Fuller block and Baird’s would have certainly gone, and while it would not have been much of a loss to the city, it would have been severe on the owners and occupants. The moral which adorns this tale is, don’t throw live coals out until they are dead, or strangle them before you leave them.

Winfield Courier, December 13, 1883.

Judge Torrance adjourned the Wellington court for three days last week to allow the lawyers to get their cases ready for trial. The Sumner docket carries nearly 300 cases.

Winfield Courier, January 3, 1884.

The man who was arrested last week on suspicion of stealing some horses which he had in his possession was discharged on a writ of habeas corpus by Judge Torrance Wednesday.

Winfield Courier, January 17, 1884.

Mr. Dave Long had Mr. W. A. Lee arrested for stacking a ton or two of hay within the limits of the city, in violation of ordinance. Mr. Lee stood the charge a fight with J. F. McMullen as his attorney. Mr. McMullen made an elaborate argument before the court, showing the lack of equity in such a case, and Judge Torrance after taking the case under advisement, decided the ordinance void.

Winfield Courier, January 24, 1884.

Dr. Wright has moved into his new office in the Fuller-Torrance block, and has furnished them in splendid shape. The rooms are very large, with high ceilings, thoroughly ventilated, and conveniently located. They are provided with water from the waterworks, sinks for carrying off the drainage, and many other useful and necessary arrangements. They are by far the handsomest offices in the city.

Winfield Courier, February 7, 1884.

We publish on the first page this week the full text of Judge Torrance’s decision in the injunction case of Bliss & Wood against the Water Company. Every citizen should read it.

[WATER WORKS DECISION BY JUDGE TORRANCE.]

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 commissioners 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.

Winfield Courier, February 7, 1884.

                                                            A Heavy Dose.

Last Thursday morning Judge Torrance passed sentence upon Dr. Fleming. It consisted of a fine of five hundred dollars and costs, amounting in all to over seven hundred dollars. In delivering the judgment of the Court, Judge Torrance made some very strong and pointed remarks. He said that the prohibitory law should be enforced and while physicians should be allowed to use liquor in the practice of their profession when used as such, no physician could sell it as a grog shop keeper. The Court seemed to have considered strongly the question of adding a penalty of confinement in the jail, but owing to the Doctor’s infirm physical condition, did not do so. The Doctor’s experience is costly, and should be lasting.

Arkansas City Traveler, February 13, 1884.

Judge E. S. Torrance and Frank Jennings, our county attorney, were in our city last Monday.

City Council Chamber now in Fuller-Torrance block...

Winfield Courier, February 21, 1884.

Our city fathers have been improving the fine Council Chamber in the Fuller-Torrance block until it presents quite a palatial appearance. The floor has been carpeted, new furniture put in, and things fixed up in general.

Winfield Courier, February 28, 1884.

The Courier Surmises


That F. M. Friend will have the finest millinery establishment in Southern Kansas when he gets moved into the Torrance-Fuller block.

Winfield Courier, February 28, 1884.

The ladies of the Christian Church will give one of their “number one” suppers at the Fuller and Torrance building, Friday night, and dinner Saturday.

Come and eat oysters at the Fuller and Torrance building, Friday night. Don’t forget.

Winfield Courier, February 28, 1884.

All are invited to come to the supper Friday evening and thus assist the hard working ladies to aid in furnishing their church building.

Winfield Courier, February 28, 1884.

Remember the time and place for supper—Torrance & Fuller building, Friday night, at any hour from half past five till all are supplied. Dinner Saturday.

For the accommodation of the businessmen, supper will be ready at half past five and dinner at half past eleven on Saturday in the Torrance and Fuller building.

Winfield Courier, February 28, 1884.

All lodges can be served with supper at the Torrance & Fuller building Friday night.

Winfield Courier, March 6, 1884.

The ladies of the Christian Church were very successful with their festival in the Torrance-Fuller building last Friday and Saturday. The room was continually thronged and an immense number were furnished meals and oysters. Their tables were spread with all the good things of the season and the supply seemed inexhaustible. The ladies always come forward heroically to help along every good cause. The proceeds go for the furnishing of the new Christian Church building.

Winfield Courier, March 6, 1884.

New England dinner by the ladies of the Presbyterian Church in the Torrance & Fuller building next Saturday.

Winfield Courier, March 13, 1884.

The ladies of the Presbyterian Church made a grand success of their supper and dinner in the Torrance and Fuller building last Friday and Saturday, as they do of all entertainments they undertake. The quality, variety, and amount of the table supplies has never been excelled. The proceeds, $140, go for the recarpeting of the church.

Winfield Courier, March 13, 1884.

The festival week before last in the Torrance and Fuller building, by the ladies of the Christian Church, netted $154.92. The new church building will soon be ready for occupancy. They extend thanks to all who so nobly assisted them in their festival.

Winfield Courier, March 20, 1884.

Miss Emma Bristol, of the Topeka Conservatory, will be in Winfield about April 1st with a collection of rare flowering plants, bulbs, house plants, etc., for sale. She will occupy a part of Mr. Friend’s room in the Torrance and Fuller building for two or three days.

[TORRANCE: JUDICIAL NOMINATION.]

Winfield Courier, April 3, 1884.


We hear from prominent attorneys in this and adjoining judicial districts a demand for a member of the Supreme Court of this state from this section of the state and in this connection the name of Judge E. S. Torrance is becoming prominent. The three judges of that court have always been of the northeast corner. Judges Horton and Valentine are good men for the place and will probably continue to be nominated and elected to succeed themselves as long as they desire the office. They both live in the northeast corner. There are just as good men for the place in the balance of the state as in that corner and this more western and southern portion of the state should have the preference. Judge Torrance is the peer of any of them in all qualities that would grace the Supreme bench, his location is best, and the Republican State convention should nominate him. If he should consent to become a candidate, he will get the warmest support from the COURIER.

Mrs. Judge E. S. Torrance...

Winfield Courier, April 3, 1884.

Mrs. Judge E. S. Torrance, of this city, wants a good girl to do household work. Good wages and a permanent situation offered. Applications may be made by letter or in person.

Winfield Courier, April 3, 1884.

Judge Torrance has sold two acres and a half out of his ten acre tract on East 12th Avenue, to J. E. Conklin, for $1,250. Mr. Conklin will build a fine residence there during the summer.

Winfield Courier, April 10, 1884.

Rev. B. Kelly, our new Methodist minister, has fitted up a roomy study in the Torrance-Fuller brick block.

[WINFIELD BOOMS.]

Winfield Courier, April 10, 1884.

Curns & Manser have bought of Judge Ide the lot south of the Torrance-Fuller buildings, for thirty-five hundred dollars, and will erect thereon a fine brick office.

Winfield Courier, April 17, 1884.

“We were prepared to hear the Winfield COURIER of last week speak out in favor of E. S. Torrance as Judge Brewer’s successor on the bench of the supreme court. There has been considerable of a stir in the corner of the state on this suggestion for some three weeks past. Without expressing a personal opinion, we know that each member of the Sumner County bar would regret to lose Mr. Torrance as their district judge, although their admiration for his many excellent qualities as a man, and their appreciation of his talents as a jurist would cause them to give him an honest and hearty support should he conclude to be a candidate for higher honors.” Sumner Co. Press.

The unanimity with which Judge Torrance’s name is being received in the Southwest in connection with the associate Justiceship is most gratifying to his many friends here. His eminent fitness for the position, his clean handed record on the bench, and his many excellent qualities as a man and a citizen are recognized and appreciated wherever he is known.

Winfield Courier, April 17, 1884.


Judge E. S. Torrance, of Winfield, is well and favorably known to many in Harper, particularly, those who have had to do with law and courts. He has been District Judge four years and in active practice of law several years previously. At all times and places he has exhibited marked ability, candor, and justice, which have made him deservedly popular with the bar and the constituency. May 20th, the District Convention meets at Winfield and Torrance will beyond doubt be renominated without opposition. But there are those who wish to call him higher. There will be a vacancy upon the Supreme Bench to fill this fall and there are those who think southern Kansas ought to fill it, those who think Judge Torrance is eminently qualified, and deserves the position. The Sentinel is one who thinks so and hopes in due time to record his nomination and election. Harper Sentinel.

Arkansas City Traveler, April 23, 1884.

The delegates elected at Winfield last Saturday to the congressional convention were instructed in favor of B. W. Perkins, and the delegates to the state convention were pledged in the interests of Blaine. Torrance carried the delegates to the judicial convention.

Excerpts...

[COUNTY CONVENTION.]

Winfield Courier, April 24, 1884.

The Republican convention of Cowley County met according to call at the Opera House in Winfield on Saturday, April 19, 1884, at 11 o’clock a.m.

We most cordially commend and endorse the acts and conduct of the Hon. E. S. Torrance as judge of the 13th Judicial district and we do hereby instruct the delegates to the judicial convention this day chosen by this convention to vote for and in every honorable way to work for his re-nomination to the honorable position he now holds.

Adopted unanimously.

Winfield Courier, April 24, 1884.

The mention of the name of E. C. Torrance, Judge of this district, as a fit person for the Republican nomination for Judge of the supreme court in place of Brewer, sends a throb of judicial pride through the soul of law-abiding citizens throughout this section of Kansas. Judge Torrance may not receive the nomination by the state convention for this exalted position, but one thing sure, there is not a higher minded, nobler, or better qualified man in Kansas for the place. Though young in years, the Judge is old in experience as an attorney and jurist, and should he be elected, he will carry to the supreme bench as much genuine dignity and honor as has ever been confided to any one man in the state of Kansas. During his occupancy of the judicial bench in this district, neither his integrity, or the honesty of his decisions have been questioned, and it is safe to say, that while they may feel reluctant to lose him from the bench here, every attorney and every other gentleman who favors a pure judiciary will be enthusiastic for his nomination on the state ticket. Howard Grip.

Winfield Courier, April 24, 1884.

                                        ELIGIBILITY OF JUDGE TORRANCE.

“The Caldwell Standard don’t seem to understand that the Judge elected to take Judge Brewer’s place must do so about the 27th of November, or as soon as the result is officially announced. We would be glad to see Judge Torrance elected to that position, but are not so anxious about it as to ignore the constitution of the state. We have a little respect left yet for that venerable instrument.” Commonwealth.

“The Howard Courant is talking about Judge Torrance as a candidate for associate Justice. Has not the Courant found out yet that he is ineligible?” Commonwealth.

The astute Commonwealth always has some axe to grind for itself or somebody else and can always find some fatal inherent flow in any other axe which is proposed to be ground, which makes it useless to grind.


To the proposed candidacy of Judge Torrance, it raises the old Democratic argument, a constitutional objection. This objection is both frivolous and absurd.

Section 13 of article 3 of our state constitution reads as follows.

“The justices of the supreme court and judges of the district court shall, at stated times, receive for their services such compensation as may be provided by law which shall not be increased during their respective term of office; provided, such compensation shall not be less than $1,500, to each justice or judge each year, and such justices or judges shall receive no fees or perquisites, or hold any other office of profit or trust, under the authority of the state or the United States, during the term of office for which said justices and judges shall be elected, nor practice law in any of the courts of the state during their continuance in office.”

It will be seen at once that the disability attaches only to the holding of the office and does not disqualify a judge from being elected to another office during the term for which he was elected to his present office. If he may hold the office after election, he may be elected during disqualification to hold the office, and the election will be valid.

In the case of Privett vs. Bick form 26th Kansas pp. 55, this matter is definitely settled by our supreme court.

Privett was elected Sheriff of Harper County at the general election of 1880, to fill a vacancy in that office. Privett had voluntarily borne arms against the government of the United States during the war of the rebellion, and at the time of his election was disqualified to hold office, in this state, by virtue of a provision of our constitution. The Legislature the following winter, by authority conferred upon it by the constitution, removed his disability to hold office, and in May 1881 he qualified as sheriff of Harper County, and afterwards commenced an action to obtain possession of the office. The Supreme court decided that he was competent to hold the office, although he was ineligible at the time he was elected. The court says that when the electors of Harper County voted for Privett, they had the right to look at and to build their expectations upon the provision of the constitution empowering the legislature to remove his disability, and if removed, that he would be entitled to the possession of the office to which he was preferred by the majority of the electors.

Admitting then, for the sake of the argument only, that the term of office of the person elected next fall to fill the place vacated by Judge Brewer commences immediately after the canvass of the votes and his official notification of his election and that the person elected was at the time a judge of a district court of this state, whose term of office would not expire until the following January. It follows from this decision that he would be competent to take the office just as soon as his term of office of district judge should expire, in such a case it would be purely a question of the electors of the state to determine, in their sovereign wisdom, whether they would elect a district judge to that position, who could not accept it until about a month after the result of his election was declared.


Both the constitution and statutes of the state, however, provide that judicial officers, whether by appointment or by election, shall hold their offices until their successors are elected and qualified; and there is no limitation upon the time within which they shall qualify. So that the executive appointee, to temporarily fill the vacancy made by Judge Brewer’s resignation, will hold the office until his successor is elected and qualified, and the term of his successor will not commence until he has qualified.

There should be no unseemly haste in a high judicial officer assuming to exercise the functions of his office, and no one should condemn that exhibition of modesty on the part of the successful candidate at next fall’s election for Judge Brewer’s position, which would lead him to defer qualifying for the office until the second Monday of January following, the usual time for judges elected to the supreme court to enter upon the discharge of their official duties.

Winfield Courier, May 1, 1884.

A Delegation of our bar proceeded to Winfield last week to interview Judge Torrance relative to his candidacy for the Supreme bench, this fall. The object was to learn whether the judge would make a canvass from a political, or a bar (barous) standpoint. If he proposes to make his canvass from a partisan basis, our bar will divide politically. If from a non-partisan standpoint, our bar would be a unit for him. The delegation might have taken it for granted that Judge Torrance would make his canvass as the strictest of the sect called ’Publicans. Even though disposed to be non-partisan, the people would trample him under foot if he went masquerading in a non-partisan habiliment. The people will not tolerate non-partisanism.

Wichita Beacon.

Winfield Courier, May 1, 1884.

                                               ELIGIBILITY OF TORRANCE.

The Commonwealth of last Saturday quotes our article of last week in full and then makes the following comments.

“The COURIER is mistaken in supposing that the Commonwealth has any ulterior objection in view in this matter. It has no candidate for the supreme bench. If the COURIER will reflect, it will remember that as a rule the Commonwealth has not taken part in the contest among Republicans for positions on the state ticket. It has believed that, occupying the position as it does at the capital of the State, it was not for the interest of the people to engage in a war for or against individuals who were seeking nominations. We have only varied from this rule when we believed there was danger that unworthy or impolitic nominations were about to be made. We have pursued this course even when local candidates would have been a good excuse for departing from the rule laid down years ago.

“The COURIER admits about all that we have claimed on the judge question, by confessing that Judge Torrance could not, if elected, take his seat at the time the constitution says he must. This we think, settles the question. We don’t pretend to say that if Judge Torrance was elected, and there was no question raised and brought before the courts, but that he might take his seat at the time stated. But if the question was raised, and had to go to the court, it would be, to say the least, an open question, a case to be decided. The decision cited by the COURIER does not meet the case in the least.”


You cannot put us off in that way, Mr. Commonwealth. The COURIER admits nothing except that Judge Torrance’s present term of office does not expire until January next. It did not admit that Torrance, if elected to fill the place vacated by Judge Brewer, could not occupy the place immediately after the canvass of the votes, except “for the sake of the argument only,” as we remarked. It certainly did not admit “that the constitution says he must.” The constitution says no such thing, does not prescribe any time within which the officer elected to fill a vacancy must qualify and hold the office. It is customary when a vacancy is filled by a general election in November that the successor takes the office on the second Monday in January following, the same time that he would take the office if elected for a full term. When a vacancy is filled by an appointment of the governor, and the term expires on the following January, it is not customary to fill the vacancy at the November election. This was the case with Gary appointed Sheriff of this county, who held the balance of the term as there was no attempt to fill the vacancy by an election and if there had been, the man elected would not have probably been hog enough to take the office away from Gary for the very short time before the commencement of the regular term. The presumption is that whoever is elected to fill the vacancy on the supreme bench will not take the office until the second Monday in January.

The Commonwealth says: “The decision cited by the COURIER does not meet the case in the least.”

We say, it meets the case in every respect. This is what the COURIER said:

“In the case of Privett vs. Bickford 26th Kansas, p. 55, this matter is definitely settled by our Supreme Court.

Privett was elected sheriff of Harper County at the general election of 1880, to fill a vacancy in this office. Privett had voluntarily borne arms against the government of the United States during the war of the rebellion, and at the time of his election was disqualified to hold office in this state, by virtue of a provision of our constitution. The Legislature the following winter, by authority conferred upon it by the Constitution, removed his disability to hold office, and in May, 1881, he qualified as sheriff of Harper County, and afterwards commenced an action to obtain possession of the office. The Supreme Court decided that he was competent to hold the office, although he was ineligible at the time he was elected. The court says that when the electors of Harper County voted for Privett, they had the right to look at and to build their expectation upon provisions of the Constitution empowering the Legislature to remove his disability, and if removed that he would be entitled to the possession of the office to which he was preferred by the majority of the electors.”

Torrance is proposed to be elected to fill a vacancy. Privett was elected to fill a vacancy. It is claimed that Torrance will be constitutionally ineligible at the time of the election (mind that we do not admit it). Privett was constitutionally ineligible at the time of the election. It is claimed that Torrance will be ineligible at the time when he might (must?) take the office. Privett was ineligible when the vote was canvassed and he “must”? take his seat, and on the second Monday in January following when he ought to have taken the office. He was not eligible until weeks later. His disability was removed by an act of the Legislature and did not qualify and offer to take the office until May following.

Torrance will be unquestionably eligible on the second Monday in January without an act of the Legislature and will take his seat then and at the usual time in such cases. The Supreme Court decided that Privett was constitutionally entitled to hold the office in May though he were ineligible for five months after he might have taken the office. So Torrance will be entitled to the office though he were ineligible for six weeks after he might have taken his seat.


Is this not plain enough for the Commonwealth? Where is the point that it does not touch? Even if we admit all that it claims about Torrance’s present ineligibility and when the Constitution says he must take his seat.

In view of the decision of the Supreme Court above cited, it cuts no figure if Torrance is actually eligible to hold the office of Justice of the Supreme Court now and at any time before the expiration of his present term of office of District Judge, but there are those who believe he is eligible now.

Section 13 of article 8 of our State constitution rules as follows:

“The justices of the Supreme Court and judges of the District Court shall at stated times, receive for their services compensation as may be provided by law which will not be increased during their respective term of office; provided, such compensation shall not be less than $1,500, to each justice or judge each year, and such justices or judges shall receive no fees or perquisites, or hold any other office of profit or trust, under the authority of the state or the United States, during the term of office for which said justices and judges shall be elected, or practice law in any of the courts of the state during their continuance in office.”

Reading only that part of the section which is pertinent to this decision, it reads: “The justices of the Supreme Court and judges of the district court shall hold no other office of profit or trust under the authority of the state or the United States during the term of office for which said justices and judges shall be elected.”

This certainly admits of the construction that, such justices and judges shall hold no office other than justice of the supreme court and judge of the district, but may hold either or both of these during the same term. The evident meaning and object of this section of the constitution was to keep the judges out of politics and keep their minds in the line of the judiciary so that they should be better qualified for judicial duties, but not to prevent the promotion to the supreme bench of a judge who has kept out of politics and become best fitted for that position. The debates and demands at the time and ever since have simply been to give judges none but judicial offices, and such was what the framers of that section intended by the inhibition and nothing else. Probably Torrance would not assent to this view and in his case it is of no consequence for he will be eligible anyhow on the second Monday  in January, the proper time for him to take his seat if elected.

Winfield Courier, May 8, 1884.

Judge Torrance, of Winfield, has lately been mentioned as a prominent candidate for the Republican nomination for associate justice of the supreme court. The judge is not well-known in this part of the state, but he has many friends in the western portion of Southern Kansas, in the region known as the Great Arkansas Valley. He is highly spoken of as a man of ability and integrity. Girard Press.

Winfield Courier, May 8, 1884. Judge Torrance is a candidate for the supreme bench, for the seat vacated by Judge Brewer. Torrance has many friends in Butler County who would be pleased to see him successful in this ambition. He is in every way worthy and well qualified for the place. Those in Butler County who have grudges against him are not likely to attempt getting even now. Times—Butler County.

Winfield Courier, May 8, 1884.


Judge Torrance, of Winfield, spent last Monday in this city. It is probable he will be a candidate for a place on the supreme bench at the next general election. We have known Mr. Torrance for many years. He is a man of the highest character and he has made a very strong record as judge of this district the past four years. Newton Republican.

Winfield Courier, May 8, 1884.

1874. OPENING THURSDAY & FRIDAY, MAY 8 & 9. 1884.

Elegant Patterns, French and American Hats and Bonnets.

And the latest Shades and Novelties in Millinery at FRIENDS TEMPLE OF MUSIC & FASHION. Torrance-Fuller Block, Winfield, Kansas.

Winfield Courier, May 15, 1884. Front Page.

JUDGE TORRANCE is looming up as a candidate for the nomination for the Supreme Bench to fill the place made vacant by Judge Brewer’s promotion. The Topeka papers and some others are insisting that Judge Torrance is ineligible because he could not, if elected, take his seat on the Supreme Bench until his present term expires, which will not take place until next January, and they say the Judge elected will be obliged to assume the duties of the office as soon as the vote is canvassed. We hardly think that this is a valid objection, and as Gov. Glick’s appointee—Judge Hurd—will necessarily hold until his successor is elected and qualified, there need be no trouble about Judge Torrance not taking his seat until January. Judge Torrance is honest, capable, and popular, and if he concludes to enter the race, we are confident he will get the entire support of every county where he has ever held a term of court. Sedan Times.

Winfield Courier, May 15, 1884.

The horse thief, mentioned in our last issue, who was arrested on the street last Wednesday by Sheriff McIntire, and after being disarmed, broke away, was captured about two miles up Timber Creek, after a very lively foot race. He proved to be John Daniels, alias  Jim Weston, whose parents live in the western part of the county. He is about twenty-two years old, and has been leading the life of a desperado for several years. He has been stealing cattle and horses in the Territory for some time, and is supposed to be one of the parties who robbed a Santa Fe car at Arkansas City in January last, with Marston, who was last week sentenced by Judge Torrance to a year in the pen. He was arrested for stealing a horse, pistol, and other property at Flying Ranch, in the Nation, about a month ago. During his short career, they say he has become very “fly” with the pistol and is one of the cowboys from the “head waters.” Criminals had better steer clear of Sheriff McIntire and his Deputy, Capt. Rarick, if they don’t want to bring up behind the iron bars.

Winfield Courier, May 15, 1884.

Judge Torrance and Messrs. J. W. Johnson, and E. F. Nelson left Monday afternoon as delegates to the Annual Encampment of Knights Templar of the state of Kansas, which convened in Emporia Tuesday and Wednesday.

Winfield Courier, May 15, 1884.

Judge Torrance adjourned court Monday until Thursday noon. But little business except criminal has been transacted. The Jury in the assault and battery case against Graham of Dexter failed to agree. It will be tried again next term. The suit between Col. Alexander and Uncle Joe Likowski for possession of the property next to McGuire Bros.’ store came up this term and Likowski gained a point by the court overruling demurrer to plaintiff’s petition. It looks a good deal as if Joe would be able to hold the property.


Arkansas City Republican, May 17, 1884.

Judge Torrance adjourned court from Monday till Thursday of this week.

Arkansas City Republican, May 17, 1884.

Judge E. S. Torrance, J. W. Johnson, and E. F. Nelson, of Winfield, attended the meeting of the Grand Commandery of the Knights Templars, at Emporia, this week.

Winfield Courier, May 22, 1884.

                                                  JUDGE E. S. TORRANCE.

The enthusiastic and unanimous action of Tuesday’s convention in the re-nomination of Judge Torrance is most gratifying to his many friends at home. His marked ability as a jurist, coupled with the purity and high character which he has brought to the bench of this district are thus publicly acknowledged by his constituents.

Excerpts: Speech by Judge Torrance...

Winfield Courier, May 22, 1884.

                                                         Judicial Convention.

The Republican Judicial convention for the 13th Judicial District met at the Courthouse in Winfield Tuesday, May 20th, at 2 o’clock p.m. It was called to order by Adrian Reynolds of Elk County. Isaac G. Reed, of Sumner County, was elected chairman and Adrian Reynolds secretary.

Convention carried on about re-election of Judge E. S. Torrance, who was called on for a speech.

                              SHORT SPEECH GIVEN BY JUDGE TORRANCE.

“Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the convention; I am not a person of many words and therefore you will not expect me to make much of a speech upon this occasion. I desire, however, to say something and I may say in the outset that no word of mine can adequately express the sense of appreciation which I feel for the favor and confidence which has been bestowed upon me this day by the renomination by this convention of myself as Judge of this Judicial District. I have had the honor of serving this District for about four years. I have in a humble way endeavored to discharge this trust which has been confided to my care and keeping faithfully and impartially. At times, I know the scales of Justice have been held with trembling hand. At times in approaching the decision of important cases, I have well nigh wished that the responsibility, the grave responsibility that rested upon my shoulders in deciding upon the rights and liberties of my fellow men, might be shifted to someone else. “I have experienced my difficulties and some inconvenience in the discharge of the duties of this exalted position. But today, they are matters of the past. I have forgotten all the difficulties and inconveniences which have attended my course so far. I feel prouder today then I ever have before in my life. I can say one thing, there is nothing that so stays and upholds the hand of public officials as the appreciation of his services by his constituents. There is no other incentive so strong to urge one to the faithful and honest discharge of his duties as the appreciation of his services by those whom he represents. As to my future course, I merely have to say that my past record is an earnest of what my future record shall be.


“I shall endeavor to discharge the duties of my office faithfully and sincerely, and I hope the experience of the past will enable me in a greater degree to discharge them to the satisfaction of my constituents and probably with less wear and tear upon my constitution. I again desire to thank you, and through you the good people of this district for this second token of their esteem and confidence in me.”

The Judge’s remarks were received by the convention in the most enthusiastic manner.

The following persons were chosen as a JUDICIAL CENTRAL COMMITTEE.

Cowley County: M. G. Troup, Geo. L. Gale, I. H. Bonsall, T. H. Soward.

Chautauqua County: R. G. Ward, D. E. Shartell.

Elk County: Adrian Reynolds, C. W. Rambo.

Sumner County: J. M. Thralls, S. P. G. Lewis, Jas. Lawrence.

The convention then adjourned.

The Judge’s remarks were received by the convention in the most enthusiastic manner.

Winfield Courier, May 22, 1884.

                                              Third Class Cities Unconstitutional.

In the case of the city of Winfield vs. R. B. Waite in the district court last week, Judge Torrance rendered a decision which, if sustained by the Supreme court, knocks the bottom out of all cities of the third-class in the state. The Judge rules that the legislature exceeded the powers given it by the constitution when it made the present provisions for the organization of third-class cities. We haven’t the exact grounds of the decision, but they are very strong. The council on Monday evening instructed the city attorney to take the matter to the supreme court. They are now busy at work revising the ordinances passed during Winfield’s third-class period.

[DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS.]

Winfield Courier, May 22, 1884.

                                                    District Court Proceedings.

S. E. Schermerhorn vs. Saml. T. Endicott, et al—trial by jury and verdict for defendant.

Leah D. Wolf vs. Jacob H. Wolf—dismissed without prejudice at cost of plaintiff.

Wm. B. Grimes, Dry Goods Co., vs. Willie S. Goss, et al—Removed to U. S. court on application of plaintiff.

Victor B. Buck & Co. vs. Willie S. Goss—Removed to U. S. Court.

City of Winfield vs. R. B. Waite—motion to quash sustained and defendant discharged.

Annie M. Johnson vs. Allen Johnson—divorce granted with alimony.

Amanda C. Proud vs. Wm. Proud. Divorce on grounds of cruelty, and plaintiff awarded custody of children.

John P. Ross vs. Sarah J. Ross. Divorce decreed plaintiff on ground of abandonment.

Sarah Schaffhausen vs. Nicholas Schaffhausen—Divorce on ground of abandonment.

Soloman Frazier vs. Sarah E. Frazier. Divorce granted.

Arkansas City Republican, May 24, 1884.


The Republican Judicial Convention met in Winfield Tuesday, May 20. The convention was called to order by Adrian Reynolds, of Elk County, and Isaac Reed, of Sumner County, was elected chairman, and Adrian Reynolds, secretary. James Lawrence, of Sumner County, nominated Judge E. S. Torrance for re-election, and the rules were suspended and the nomination made unanimous. Judge Torrance being present was called for and responded in a short speech expressing his appreciation of the honor of re-nomination and promising to perform the duties faithfully and impartially as in the past.

The following persons were chosen as a judicial central committee.

Cowley County: M. S. Teter, S. W. Chase, M. G. Troup, Geo. L. Gale, J. W. Millspaugh, I. H. Bonsall, and T. H. Soward.

Chautauqua County: J. I. Crouse, Wm. P. Lynch, Richard Speed, R. G. Ward, and D. E. Shartell.

Elk County: Adrian Reynolds, C. W. Rambo.

Sumner County: J. M. Thralls, S. P. G. Lewis, James Lawrence, Isaac G. Reed, and Orie Fitzgerald.

The convention then adjourned.

At a meeting of the judicial central committee, it organized by electing M. G. Troup chairman and Adrian Reynolds secretary.

Winfield Courier, May 29, 1884.

It is proposed by the City school board to submit to the voters of this district a proposition to vote $10,000 bonds for the purpose of building a new four room schoolhouse. There is not room in our present twelve school rooms for near all the pupils that would have to attend our city schools and something must be done to make more room and that immediately.

It is concluded that four more rooms will be sufficient for the present, possibly for three or four years, but without doubt in the not distant future, another 4 rooms will be needed and still another.

It is, therefore, important in locating a new schoolhouse this summer that it should be done in reference to the future location of at least two more schoolhouses. At present there are the most pupils in the east and southeast part of the district who are distant from a schoolhouse, and the first new house should be built in that direction. We should say that about in the vicinity of Judge Torrance’s ten acre tract and Senator Hackney’s residence would be a proper location.

When other schoolhouses are to be built, the northeast and southwest parts of the district would naturally be the locations. It is probable that the wards of the city will be increased in number as fast as schoolhouses are built and the house to be built this year will be known as the third ward schoolhouse.

There is a considerable area in the east and southeast that ought to be included in the corporation limits and will be at no distant day, and we know of no reason why it should be insisted that a schoolhouse to be built this year should be located within the present city limits. It is enough that it be located in the most suitable place within the district whether outside or inside the city limits.

We should say that the school board should first locate the site and contract for the ground subject to the approval of the voters at the election. Then submit the bonds, stating the location in the proposition and then an approval of the bonds will be an approval of the site and every voter will vote with a full and fair understanding of the situation.

Repeating an article that was also given on Page 1 relative to Torrance...

Winfield Courier, June 5, 1884.


We notice by the papers in the 13th Judicial District that Judge E. S. Torrance, of Winfield, was, on the 20th inst., renominated by acclamation. We take pleasure in mentioning this fact because Mr. Torrance read law and was admitted to the bar in this city in 1870. In November of that year he was elected county attorney of Cowley County, which position he held several years. He was elected judge of the 13th district in 1880. The judge made a nice and feeling speech in accepting the nomination and the compliment implied. Some months since he was spoken of as a possible candidate for a place on the supreme bench. But this unanimous nomination and hearty acceptance would indicate that he was going to stay with his friends another four years. Emporia News.

Winfield Courier, June 26, 1884.

                                                             TORRANCE.

As the State Convention approaches, the prospects of Judge Torrance as a candidate for Associate Justice become more flattering. It is evident that he has a goodly following in every part of the State, and if Southern Kansas will give him the enthusiastic support, which the real inclination of the people prompts, we believe he will be nominated. We think today, he is the strongest candidate in the field, and there is every reason for his friends to take courage and begin to stir themselves. Wellingtonian.

Winfield Courier, July 3, 1884.

Judge E. S. Torrance and Frank Raymond left the law-dispensing machine at Sedan Sunday, drove twenty-three miles to the railroad before daylight, and came home to spend six hours and take dinner. They made the same route in the evening, arriving at Sedan in the middle of the night. Men who will ride one hundred and fifty miles to get a square meal and a peep at “the folks at home” deserve chromos of the highest merit.

Not certain if the following item relates to Frank Raymond...

Winfield Courier, July 10, 1884.

                                              SEDAN JOTTINGS - “JASPER.”

The weather is oppressively hot and lemonade and cream are fast becoming the staff of human comfort.

Court is ended. Judge Torrance, Frank Raymond, and Senator Hackney, whose pleasant faces had almost become familiar among our citizens, left Sedan Tuesday as court adjourned. This has been a long and wearisome term and it failed to reach any civil business at all.

Just here Jasper wants to take off his hat and make the bow of a new made lawyer to his Cowley County friends. Through the courtesy of the counsel he was permitted to make the opening argument in the Bacon and Hendricks cases, before being admitted to the bar. But on Tuesday, after a short examination, he was permitted to step forward and enroll his name as one of the legal fraternity. He desires to return his sincere thanks to all those kind friends who have done so much to encourage him in the struggles and embarrassments so unavoidable in a student’s life.

[NOTICE: BLISS & WOOD.]

Winfield Courier, July 17, 1884.

                                                                NOTICE.

To the following named owners of land, and to all other persons whose land may be affected by the proceedings herein mentioned:


YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT Charles A. Bliss, Benjamin F. Wood, and E. Spencer Bliss have presented to Hon. E. S. Torrance, Judge of the District Court of Cowley County, Kansas, their petition in writing, setting forth all statements required by law, and asking to have condemned to them the right to build and construct to a height two (2) feet higher than its present height, and to forever maintain at such height, their mill dam across the Walnut River, said dam being located on the north half of the northeast quarter of Section No. 29, in Township No. 32, South, of Range No. 4 East, in Cowley County, Kansas, to thereby raise the water in the channels of the Walnut River and Timber Creek, above said dam, the purpose of raising said dam as aforesaid being to provide water power additional to that now owned and used by the petitioners above named and obtained by means of said existing dam, wherewith to run and operate the machinery in a large flouring and grist mill and grain elevator owned and operated by said petitioners and located upon the tract of land aforesaid; that pursuant to the prayer of said petition the said Judge has appointed the undersigned as Commissioners to meet at the place where said dam is proposed to be raised, on the Twenty-sixth (26th) day of August, 1884, and then and there to inquire touching the matters contained in said petition. And you are further notified that the undersigned Commissioners will meet at the place where said dam is proposed to be raised, on the Twenty-sixth (26th) day of August, 1884, and then and there inquire touching the matters contained in said petition, and examine the point at which said dam is proposed to be raised, and the lands and the real estate which will probably be injured by raising said dam to the height petitioned for, and hear the allegations and testimony of all parties interested, and make a separate assessment of damages which will result to any person by raising said mill dam to the height petitioned for, and its maintenance forever. And in case such work shall not be completed on that day, said Commissioners will continue the same from day to day until finally completed.

The numbers or descriptions of the tracts of land owned by non-residents of said county which will be affected by raising said dam as aforesaid, together with the names of the respective owners thereof prefixed thereto, are as follows, to wit:

B. B. Vandeventer, part S. W. ¼ and part S. E. ¼ Sec. 21 and part S. W. ¼ Sec. 22;

John Sickles, part S. W. ¼ Sec. 21;

J. B. Corson, part N. E. ¼ Sec. 20;

The Southern Kansas Railroad Company; part N. W. ¼ Sec. 28, all in Township 32, South, of Range 4 East;

L. Farr and J. Addison Rucker, part S. W. ¼ Sec. 31, Tp. 31, S., of R. 4E.;

M. M. Wells, part S. W. ¼ Sec. 21;

Elizabeth Taylor, part S. W. ¼ Sec. 17 and part S. E. ¼ Sec. 18; and

Elijah Taylor, part N. E. ¼ in Sec. 18, in Tp. 32, S., of R. 4 E.

Witness our hands this 8th day of July, 1884.

               HENRY HARBAUGH, W. L. WEBB, W. D. ROBERTS, Commissioners.

McDonald & Webb, Attorneys for Petitioners.

Torrance, his sister, Mrs. Wallace of Hannibal, Missouri, and his wife and her sister, Mrs. Lowry take drive to Indian Territory...

Arkansas City Traveler, July 23, 1884.


Judge Torrance, of Winfield, favored us with a short call Saturday last. The gentleman, accompanied by Mrs. Torrance and her sister, Miss Lowry, and his sister, Mrs. Wallace, of Hannibal, Missouri, had been for a drive to the Indian Territory, in the course of which they visited the Chilocco school. While in our city the party were the guests of Mrs. W. F. Benedict.

Torrance withdraws from race to become an Associate Justice...

Winfield Courier, July 24, 1884.

                                                Cowley at the State Convention.

Recap. On the morning of the first day of the convention, Judge Torrance had strength enough to become the nominee for Associate Justice, but question of his ineligibility arising and their being doubts in the minds of many on the question, the Judge thought it best to withdraw from the race. His forces then went to Attorney-General Johnson, giving that gentleman the nomination.

Winfield Courier, July 24, 1884.

                                                            County Auditor.

The population of the County having reached over twenty-five thousand, the statute provides for an additional county officer, an Auditor. He is appointed by the district court and his duties are to examine and pass upon the legality of all bills against the county. He must cite in each instance the section of the statute under which the contract or account is authorized to be made. The salary is fixed at one thousand dollars a year. At the session of the Board of County Commissioners last week they found that the population of the county was 26,137, and on Monday Judge Torrance appointed M. G. Troup, Auditor. Mr. Troup filed his bond ($50,000) immediately; it was approved, and he took possession of the office. Mr. Troup brings to the office a large experience in county affairs and legal ability second to none in the county. His competency is unquestioned. While the COURIER and Mr. Troup have had several tilts in the past, it has always been ready to recognize his ability and many excellent qualities.

Winfield Courier, July 24, 1884.

                                            Adjourned Term of the District Court.

An adjourned term of the District Court was held Monday. When a county has twenty-five thousand inhabitants, it is entitled to an Auditor, whose duty it is to audit all bills against the county before passed on by the County Commissioners. Cowley’s last census brought us to and over this point, and on Monday Judge Torrance appointed M. G. Troup to the position of County Auditor. The salary is one thousand dollars per annum. The Judge also called a grand jury. It will sit about September and its good results will no doubt be many. In the case of H. R. Darrough vs. L. B. Stone, County Treasurer, a judgment was rendered for the defendant. A motion for a new trial was overruled. A. T. Gunsaulis vs. Ella Gunsaulis, divorce decreed on ground of abandonment. Edgar Smith vs. T. A. Wilkinson et al, judgement for plaintiff. Hattie Hutcherson vs. Jesse Hutcherson, divorce decreed and plaintiff restored to her maiden name, defendant to pay all costs.

Arkansas City Republican, Saturday, July 26, 1884.

                                                          Courier Clippings.

                                            Adjourned Term of the District Court.


An adjourned term of the District Court was held Monday. When a county has twenty-five thousand inhabitants, it is entitled to an Auditor, whose duty it is to audit all bills against the county before passed on to the County Commissioners. Cowley’s last census brought us to and over this point, and on Monday Judge Torrance appointed M. G. Troup to the position of County Auditor. The salary is one thousand dollars per annum.

The Judge also called a grand jury. It will sit about September and its good results will no doubt be many.

In the case of H. R. Darrough vs. L. B. Stone, county treasurer, a judgment was rendered for the defendant. A motion for a new trial was overruled.

A. T. Gunsaulis vs. Ella Gunsaulis—divorce decreed on ground of abandonment.

Edgar Smith vs. T. A. Wilkinson et al.; judgment for plaintiff.

Hattie Hutcherson vs. Jesse Hutcherson—divorce decreed and plaintiff restored to her maiden name, defendant to pay all costs.

Torrance selling his ten acre lot in east Winfield...

Winfield Courier, August 7, 1884.

                DESIRABLE RESIDENT LOTS FOR SALE BY CURNS & MANSER.

Judge E. S. Torrance has laid off his ten acre lot, in the east part of the city, into quarter blocks, and has placed them into the hands of Curns & Manser, for sale.

The location is a very desirable one being high and overlooking the city, fronting north on 12th Avenue. Now is the time to procure the most beautiful site for a home in Winfield. Parties desiring such should call at once on CURNS & MANSER, Real Estate Agents, Winfield, Kansas.

Winfield Courier, August 28, 1884.

W. H. TURNER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Winfield, Kansas. Loans money on real estate on short notice. Money loaned on chattel mortgage security and notes bought on reasonable discount. Office in Fuller & Torrance Block.

Winfield Courier, August 28, 1884.

WRIGHT & PUGH. [W. T. WRIGHT/C. E. PUGH] PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS, Winfield. Especial attention given to chronic and surgical diseases. Office in Torrance-Fuller block, upstairs.

Winfield Courier, September 4, 1884.

Judge E. S. Torrance is quite sick with malarial fever and will not be able to hold court for some weeks to come.

Winfield Courier, September 11, 1884.

                                   NEWS FROM UDALL. [From Correspondent.]

This week Squire Norman will present to Judge Torrance the compliments of our citizens and request him to grant an order for our incorporation as a city of the 3rd class.

Winfield Courier, September 25, 1884.

Judge E. S. Torrance left Saturday for a short eastern rejuvenating tour. His recent illness has left him in a dilapidated condition, but he hopes to return able to cope with the October term of our District Court.

Arkansas City Traveler, October 8, 1884.

District court was called for yesterday, but we understand has been postponed on account of the sickness of Judge Torrance.


Winfield Courier, October 9, 1884.

Court met Tuesday and adjourned. No court will probably be held until Judge Torrance recovers sufficiently to preside in person.

Arkansas City Republican, October 11, 1884.

District court will convene on the 20th of this month. Last Monday was the day set, but it was postponed until the above date on account of the sickness of Judge Torrance.

Arkansas City Traveler, Wednesday, October 15, 1884.

Republican Ticket: Judge 13th District: E. S. TORRANCE.

County Ticket:

County Attorney:    HENRY E. ASP.

Probate Judge:  H. D. GANS.

District Clerk:   ED. PATE.

County Supt.:   A. H. LIMERICK.

Winfield Courier, October 16, 1884.

Udall has a petition properly signed and in waiting for Judge Torrance’s return from the East, petitioning incorporation as a city of the third class.

Winfield Courier, October 16, 1884.

Sam’l. L. Hamilton, formerly editor of the Wellingtonian, was appointed last week by Judge Torrance, through I. G. Reed, Judge pro tem, County Auditor of Sumner.

Arkansas City Traveler, Wednesday, October 22, 1884.

NATIONAL REPUBLICAN TICKET.

For President: JAMES G. BLAINE.

For Vice President: JOHN A. LOGAN.

For Congress 3rd Dist.: B. W. PERKINS.

STATE REPUBLICAN TICKET.

For Governor: JOHN A. MARTIN.

Judge 13th District: E. S. TORRANCE.

Senator 27th District: F. S. JENNINGS.

Representative 67th District: LOUIS P. KING.

COUNTY TICKET.

County Attorney:    HENRY E. ASP.

Probate Judge:  H. D. GANS.

District Clerk:   Ed. PATE.

County Supt.:   A. H. LIMERICK.

Winfield Courier, October 23, 1884.

Judge E. S. Torrance returned from his northern trip Saturday, looking robust and healthy. That climate proved a wonderful rejuvenator, and he took the District Court bench Monday morning fully prepared for an aggressive term.

[LETTER FROM W. P. HACKNEY.]

Arkansas City Traveler, Wednesday, October 29, 1884.

                         TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF COWLEY COUNTY.


GENTLEMEN: As is usual at the close of our campaigns in this county, you are insulted and outraged by a characterless sheet published in Winfield and misnamed “The Telegram,” and known all over Cowley County as a dirty, filthy sewer through which vile slanders are annually heaped upon the unoffending candidates of the Republican party. This sheet does not advocate Democratic principles, unless to peddle lies and slanders, and to paint men in false colors, to their shame and that of their families and friends, in Democracy. I cannot call to mind now a single editorial in that paper intended or calculated to increase the Democratic votes of this county by legitimate argument or the enunciation of a single principle. Its whole stock in trade consists in the peddling of lies, vilification of men, and the repeating of slanders.

In this community where it is best known, it is recognized as the mouthpiece of the vile, vicious, and venal. If it has a character for honesty or decency, it has covertly and designedly hid the light under a bushel. In its issue of the 16th, it contained a base and infamous charge against Henry E. Asp, who has lived in this community from his boyhood up, and who is respected by every decent man in Cowley County who knows him. This charge was made by that paper at the instance and in the interests of Joseph O’Hare, his political opponent, and is in  keeping with the character of O’Hare and in accord with the past record of that paper. Six years ago in this county, when the man who today honors the bench and is the respected judge of this district, was a candidate for county attorney, that paper made the same kind and character of charges against him. And yet today that paper, knowing that the upright and honorable conduct of Judge Torrance upon the bench has placed him beyond the power of that infamous sheet to encompass his defeat with a Democrat, now endorses his candidacy. Again, five years ago, this same outfit vilified and blackened the character of A. T. Shenneman, who gave his life in the discharge of his duty. Again, four years ago, this vile and dirty sewer of all filth made the same kind of a fight on myself, and with what result we all know. Again, two years ago, this sheet made the same kind of a fight on James McDermott, whose honesty and integrity cannot be questioned, and succeeded in defeating him with a man whose whole career in the legislature was opposed to the interests of the people of Cowley County. And last year this same paper vomited forth its vile and infamous lies about George McIntire, Tom Soward, and Capt. Nipp, and sent its satraps and parasites forth to repeat its charges for the purpose of deluding Republicans and thereby obtaining votes under false pretenses for its candidate.

Why is it that you never hear their candidates upon the stump advocating their election because of the principles of their party and in the interest of their party? Why is it that they go out into the campaign and sneak up to your homes and peddle the libels of that paper to the disgust of decent men, instead of magnifying their own fitness for that position? Because their candidates, as a rule, are not able to do so, and for the further reason that as a rule their countenances of themselves are a breach of the peace.

How long must the Republicans stand such treatment, and are we to retaliate? I answer, we must submit to it so long as that paper is controlled by the moral leper who now directs its course and mouths the excrement vomited by that sheet each week of its filthy issue. We cannot retaliate because no decent Republican can get low enough in the purlieus of filth to compete with them.


Are their candidates better men than ours? Not at all; they never claim that. They engage in that conduct because they hope to steal into office thereby, and because without the employment of such means to deceive the thoughtless and unwary and thereby procure their votes, they could not hope to succeed.

The paper and its siders and abetters in this city, are to decent politics what a peat house is to a healthy community, or a pig stye in summer to a near neighbor.

The abuse of this paper is and should be treated by men who are familiar with the facts as an honest man’s endorsement.

Our candidates are all men who have lived in our midst; they were unanimously nominated by the largest and best convention of men ever assembled in Cowley County, and all fresh from the people of each township; and that convention by its nominations certified to the good character of each, and nothing that this infamous sheet can do or say in this campaign ought to win any Republican from his allegiance. Let us remember that the enemy is virulent, that he is exasperated by defeat, and poisoned with malice, and let us this year, as last, down this dirty outfit again.

Hoping that we may win a grand victory on Tuesday next, I am, W. P. HACKNEY.

P.S. Business in court is my excuse for not visiting you in person. H.

Arkansas City Traveler, Wednesday, October 29, 1884.

                                   A STATEMENT FROM JUDGE TORRANCE.

                                         WINFIELD, KANSAS, Oct. 27, 1884.

In the issue of the Telegram of the 16th inst., appeared an anonymous communication from some person signing himself “A Farmer,” in which he refers to some rumors he claims to have heard affecting the character of Henry E. Asp, for honesty and integrity, while he was my partner in the practice of law. My attention was called to this communication, but as it was an anonymous one and did not pretend to assert as a matter of fact that Mr. Asp was guilty of any dishonest practices, I did not deem that the article demanded any notice from myself.

In the issue of the Telegram of the 23rd inst., however, the editors of that paper published an editorial accusing Mr. Asp of certain dishonest acts, while he was in partnership with me. These charges being specific and positively asserted by the editors of one of the public newspapers of this county, and not by one who is ashamed to sign his own name to his own communication, and especially as they are charges affecting Mr. Asp in his relation as my partner in the practice of the law, I deem it my duty not to let them pass unnoticed.     In respect to this matter I have this to say, that these charges made against Mr. Asp by the Telegram impeaching his conduct for honesty and integrity in his relation as my law partner, are not true. I hand this denial to Mr. Asp, who is at liberty to use it as his judgment may dictate. E. S. TORRANCE.

Arkansas City Traveler, October 29, 1884.

Udall is to be formally organized into a city of the third class. The incorporation papers were sent to Judge Torrance last Wednesday. Cowley is full of prosperous towns.

Winfield Courier, October 30, 1884.

[Editorial column has a long discourse about Democrats attacking Republicans, especially those living in Cowley County. RECAP.


1. Attacked Henry E. Asp, Republican candidate for county attorney. Geo. Rembaugh wrote and published a letter in the Telegram charging Mr. Asp with collecting funds for clients and refusing to pay over, so that Mr. Torrance, his partner, had to pay and the Judge was about to disbar him, send him to prison, and other awful things. . . . Then he charged Asp with trying to bribe John C. Roberts to vote and work for the railroad bonds. . . .

                       [Torrance told all who would listen that attack was done by liars.]

Winfield Courier, October 30, 1884.

                         TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF COWLEY COUNTY.

GENTLEMEN: As is usual at the close of our campaigns in this county, you are insulted and outraged by a characterless sheet published in Winfield and misnamed “The Telegram,” and known all over Cowley County as a dirty, filthy sewer through which foul slanders are annually heaped upon the unoffending candidates of the Republican party. This sheet does not advocate Democratic principles, unless to peddle lies and slanders, and paint men in false colors to their shame and that of their families and friends, is democracy. I cannot call to mind now a single editorial in that paper intended or calculated to increase the Democratic votes of this county by legitimate argument or the enunciation of a single principle. Its whole stock in trade consists in the peddling of lies, vilification of men, and the repeating of slanders.

In this community where it is best known, it is recognized as the mouthpiece of the vile, vicious, and venal. If it has character for honesty or decency, it has covertly and designedly hid its light under a bushel. In its issue of the 16th, it contained a base and infamous charge against Henry E. Asp, who has lived in this community from his boyhood up, and who is respected by every decent man in Cowley County who knows him. This charge was made by that paper at the instance of, and in the interest of, Joseph O’Hare, his political opponent, and is in keeping with the character of O’Hare and in accord with the past record of that paper.

Six years ago in this county, when the man who today honors the bench and is the respected judge of the district, was a candidate for County Attorney, that paper made the same kind and character of charges against him. And yet, today, that paper, knowing that the upright and honorable conduct of Judge Torrance upon the bench has placed him beyond the power of that infamous sheet to encompass his defeat with a Democrat, now endorses his candidacy.

Again, five years ago, this same outfit vilified and blackened the character of A. T. Shenneman, who gave his life in the discharge of his duty.

Again, four years ago this vile and dirty sewer of all filth made the same kind of a fight on myself and with what result we all know.

Again, two years ago this sheet made the same kind of a fight on James McDermott, whose honesty and integrity cannot be questioned, and succeeded in defeating him with a man whose whole career in the legislature was opposed to the interests of the people of Cowley County.

And last year this same paper vomited forth its vile and infamous lies about George McIntire, Tom Soward, and Capt. Nipp, and sent its satraps and parasites forth to repeat its charges for the purpose of deluding Republicans and thereby obtaining votes under false pretenses for its candidates.


Why is it that you never hear their candidates upon the stump advocating their election because of the principles of their party and in the interest of their party. Why is it that they go out into the campaign and sneak up to your homes and peddle the libels of that paper to the disgust of decent men, instead of magnifying their own fitness for the position? Because their candidates, as a rule, are not able to do so, and for the further reason that as a rule, their countenances of themselves are a breach of the peace.

How long must the Republicans stand such treatment, and are we to retaliate? I answer, we must submit to it so long as that paper is controlled by the moral leper who now directs  its course and go out and mouths the excrement vomited by that sheet each week of its filthy issue. We cannot retaliate because no decent Republican can get low enough in the purlieus of filth to compete with them.

Are their candidates better men than ours? Not at all, they never claim that. They engage in this conduct because they hope to steal into office thereby, and because without the employment of such means to deceive the thoughtless and unwary and thereby procure their votes, they could not hope to succeed.

That paper and its aiders and abetters in this city are to decent politics what a pest house is to a healthy community, or a pig stye in summer to a near neighbor.

The abuse of that paper is and should be treated by men who are familiar with the facts as an honest man’s endorsement.

Our candidates are all men who have lived in our midst, they were unanimously nominated by the largest and best convention of men ever assembled in Cowley County, and all fresh from the people of each township and that convention by its nominations certified to the good character of each, and nothing that this infamous sheet can do or say in this campaign ought to win any Republican from his allegiance. Let us remember that the enemy is virulent, that he is exasperated by defeat, and poisoned with malice, and let us this year, as last, down this dirty outfit again.

Hoping that we may win a grand victory on Tuesday next, I am W. P. HACKNEY.

                     P. S. Business in court is my excuse for not visiting you in person. H.

Winfield Courier, October 30, 1884.

                                   A STATEMENT FROM JUDGE TORRANCE.

Winfield, Kansas, October 27, 1884.


In the issue of the Telegram of the 16th inst., appeared an anonymous communication from some person signing himself “A Farmer,” in which he refers to some rumors he claims to have heard affecting the character of Henry E. Asp, for honesty and integrity, while he was my partner in the practice of law. My attention was called to this communication, but as it was an anonymous one and did not pretend to assert as a matter of fact that Mr. Asp was guilty of any dishonest practices, I did not deem that the article demanded any notice from myself. In the issue of the Telegram of the 23rd inst., however, the editors of that paper published an editorial accusing Mr. Asp of certain dishonest acts while he was in partnership with me. These charges being specific and positively asserted by the editors of one of the public newspapers of this county, and not by one who is ashamed to sign his own name to his own communication, and especially as they are charges affecting Mr. Asp in his relation as my partner in the practice of the law, I deem it my duty not to let them pass unnoticed. In respect to this matter I have this to say, that these charges made against Mr. Asp by the Telegram impeaching his conduct for honesty and integrity in his relation as my law partner, are not true. I hand this denial to Mr. Asp, who is at liberty to use it as his judgment may dictate. E. S. TORRANCE.

Winfield Courier, October 30, 1884.

Mr. Wm. Gall, superintendent and architect, has taken rooms in the Torrance-Fuller block.

Winfield Courier, November 6, 1884.

                                                  District Court the Past Week.

Court adjourned Monday to the January term.

Judge Torrance left Thursday for Howard to hold a term of court.

The Grand Jury adjourned Saturday after two week’s faithful labor. Their findings were principally among violators of the liquor law and will appear to be the public at their maturity.

Sheriff McIntire left yesterday afternoon for the penitentiary with Campbell, for ten years, and Askens for five years. The latter had just served out a three years term in the pen when he stole the $75 horse which gave him this round. He rather likes the state bastille.

Joseph Likowski vs. John M. Alexander—Postponed to April, 1885, term.

Elizabeth McQuain vs. Nancy A. Baldwin, et al—Sheriff ordered to sell land as provided by law and report proceedings at the next term of court.

Read & Robinson vs. W. A. Wright. Commissioners report confirmed and cash dividend between plaintiffs and defendant, including Jas. McDermott’s Attorney fee, $25.00; McDonald & Webb’s Attorney fee, $25.00; $5.00 each for Commissioners and summons, $7.00.

David McKee vs. Hull Bixby. Plaintiff given leave to make new parties affidavit, W. W. Andrews and wife, by filing amended petition.

A. P. Carmon et al vs. R. B. Temple. Settled and dismissed without prejudice at cost of plaintiff.

Victor B. Buck & Co. vs. Wm. D. McClintock et al. Dismissed without prejudice at cost of plaintiff.

Letha C. Green vs. Adolphus H. Green. Dismissed without prejudice at cost of defendant.

Fannie Wilson vs. James Wilson. Trial by court and divorce decreed on grounds of extreme cruelty, plaintiff to pay costs.

Winfield Bank vs. Hugh Riley et al. Judgment by default against defendant for $250.70 and interest at 10 percent.

City of Winfield vs. Steven Van Buren et al. Appeal dismissed by defendant. All costs and fine have been paid.

Laura Jones vs. J. L. Jones. Divorce decreed on grounds of abandonment and plaintiff adjudged to pay costs.

Hardwick & Peabody vs. Vance & Roseborough. Dismissed with prejudice.

State vs. A. L. Thomas. Violation liquor law. Continued by order of court and bail fixed in sum of $200. Recognizance already given forfeited.

State vs. Edgar C. Mason. Violation liquor law. Recognizance forfeited and case continued; bail fixed at $300 in default of which the defendant was committed.


State vs. Wilson M. Campbell, the Bolton Township rape case. Trial by jury, verdict of guilty and sentenced to penitentiary for ten years.

State vs. E. Kimmel and Frank Hillman. Cases continued with bonds of $300 each for appearance at the January term. Bonds given.

State vs. James Stansberry—petit larceny. Plead guilty and sentenced to one hour in county jail and to pay costs.

State vs. Edward F. Shindle, violation liquor law. Found guilty by jury on 3rd jaunt, sentenced to fifty days in county jail, permit forfeited, and costs to pay; he was placed under bond of $500 for good behavior for one year, to stand committed until same is given.

State vs. W. J. Burge, violation liquor law. Jury disagreed and case was continued; bail fixed at $500.

State vs. J. C. Beeson, grand larceny. Trial by jury and acquittal.

State vs. John Askens, horse stealing. Found guilty by jury and sentenced to penitentiary for five years.

Winfield Courier, November 6, 1884.

                                     CITY AND COUNTY ELECTION NOTES.

Judge Torrance and Prof. Limerick, with no opposition, captured almost the entire vote of the county—a meritable compliment indeed.

Winfield Courier, November 20, 1884.

Judge Torrance has ordered a Grand Jury for the December term of the District Court of Sumner County.

Winfield Courier, December 4, 1884.

Judge Torrance has ordered a grand jury for the December term of the district court of this county. This is a decided step toward the thorough and complete enforcement of the laws of the State. The only regret that can be expressed is that this step was not taken four years ago, when the prohibitory liquor law was first enacted. This is the only means by which certain species of offenses can be effectually reached, and if the guardians of our law had desired its full and complete enforcement, the grand jury system would not have been silenced all of this time. The grand jury can gather evidence that cannot be gathered any other way, and herein is the virtue of the system. If any law abiding citizen has knowledge of the commission of any offense, he has an opportunity to go before the grand jury and state his evidence. When this course is pursued by our courts, no crime however small is liable to be overlooked, nor is it any easy matter for the guilty to escape punishment.

Wellington Standard.

Winfield Courier, December 25, 1884.

Judge Torrance yesterday quite severely reprimanded a young attorney for being too demonstrative in the courtroom, in the matter of applauding a sharp witness. The legal limb was given until the morning to show cause why he should not be fined for contempt. He made a nice apology and was excused. Torrance will stand no monkeying. Wellington Press.

                                      J. S. Mann. The Never-Resting Clothier.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, January 1, 1885.


Among the first men to open up a first-class clothing store in Winfield was Mr. J. S. Mann, in the stand now next to the Farmers Bank. From the first he carried a stock specially adapted to the fine trade and by judicious advertising and fair dealing soon won popularity and took front rank among our merchants, which enviable position he has never ceased to maintain. Soon his quarters became inadequate to his immense stock and he removed to the old Williams House building; that also proved too small and he now occupies the large and well-lighted room in the Torrance-Fuller block. Everything about his store exhibits taste and experience and his stock is unexcelled. His clothing is all from the very best eastern manufactures, and in fit, quality, and price never fails to please. His stock of gent’s furnishings equals that to be found in any of the larger cities and never fails to catch our tony dressers. Mr. Mann has gained a business and reputation highly merited and of which he should certainly feel proud. Aside from his qualities as a merchant, he is ever found prominent in matters of church and public enterprise. His name has greeted the COURIER readers from week to week and from year to year until it has become as familiar as the paper itself.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, January 8, 1885.

                                                       WRIGHT & PUGH.

                                              [W. T. WRIGHT - C. E. PUGH]

                                              Physicians and Surgeons, Winfield.

                              Especial attention given to chronic and surgical diseases.

                                         Office in Torrance-Fuller block, up stairs.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, January 8, 1885.

                                                          W. H. TURNER.

                                        ATTORNEY AT LAW, Winfield, Kansas.

Loans money on real estate on short notice. Money loaned on chattel mortgage security and notes bought on reasonable discount.

                                              Office in Fuller & Torrance Block.

                                                            Miscellaneous.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, January 8, 1885.

                                                         WILLIAM GALL.

                                       ARCHITECT AND SUPERINTENDENT.

                                    Office Torrance-Fuller Block, Winfield, Kansas.

[EXCHANGES.]

Arkansas City Traveler, January 14, 1885.

                                                     WELLINGTON PRESS.

Before adjourning court, Judge Torrance ordered a grand jury for the April term of court. This will probably have the effect of shaking up several “dry bones” in this part of the country.

                                                    WINFIELD TELEGRAM.

If Judge Torrance keeps the thing up, he will probably do more than anyone else to get this judicial district divided. Wellington will literally howl for it. The judge makes everyone walk the chalk line over there who has business with his court. Last week a number of witnesses were dismissed from the courtroom, but told to remain within hearing. The latter injunction they failed to obey, and as a consequence were fined $5 apiece and costs.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, January 15, 1885.


Before adjourning the Sumner County District Court week before last, Judge Torrance ordered a grand jury for the April term of that court.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, February 5, 1885.

Judge Torrance left for a visit among Topeka solons Tuesday.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, February 5, 1885.

Judge Torrance adjourned court from Saturday last to Monday next, to set the civil docket. The criminal docket was cleared of every case where the defendant could be reached, Several violators of Her Majesty, the law, were from under the jurisdiction of this Court, but will be brought up to the rack of justice in April. The civil docket will also be cleared easily this term.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, February 5, 1885.

The criminal victims of this term of court were brought before Judge Torrance last Saturday evening and sentenced.

Chas. Neal and John Newton were given two years in the “pen” for breaking into a store at Udall a few weeks ago and getting a short distance with two guns and other valuables. They are in their teens, of good appearance, and took their sentence more like a huge joke than the stern, terrible reality that it will prove to be.

Frank Hillman, a rather good looking, smooth faced fellow of twenty-five, gets ten years in “durance vile” for his first attempt at highway robbery. Last summer at Arkansas City, he planned with a confederate to decoy the latter’s friend into an alley, where he would appear, and without resistance on the part of the confederate, “hold up” their young victim. But the result of his $50 haul is an eternal blight to his life, and an opportunity for silent, long repentance. His pal will probably be sent up by the April sitting of court.

Another bitter pill for a seemingly small offense was J. N. Slade’s sentence of one year. He was a fruit tree agent of Hogue & Mentch. An order of $90 came in last summer, purporting to be from Silas Kennedy, of Beaver township, for full delivery. The order was delivered at the appointed time, but Kennedy refused it and claimed the order a forgery. Slade had received his percent for the order, not over fifteen or twenty dollars, and Hogue & Mentch had him arrested for forgery and embezzlement. Slade plead not guilty, the trial was ended, and the jury hung, when the defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered one of guilty, thereby lessening the sentence should conviction occur. One man hung the jury and nothing but conviction would have resulted in another trial.

R. H. Black is another fruit tree man who came to grief, being convicted of forgery and embezzlement, and sentenced to two years’ State hospitality. He was an agent for Broward & Stenard, Ottawa, and gave several Cowley farmers surprises in fruit tree deliveries they had no previous knowledge of. His whole summer’s work was forgeries; but after one or two deliveries were refused, the company “caught on,” and ceased delivering and had the gentleman placed behind the iron bars.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, February 12, 1885.


When the varied superiority of the Queen City of Southern Kansas is fired at a Wellington citizen, it completely paralyzes him. Listen to the Standard’s honest acknowledgment: “Frank Raymond, our ‘short-hand’ friend of Winfield, came over to take the evidence in the Edwards trial and during the week put in his odd time blowing up our sister city. He seemed attached to the Standard man, who in an unguarded moment made some complimentary remark about Winfield, and for that one foolish statement we were referred to for all kind of facts that we knew no more about than ‘the man in the moon.’ Frank Raymond and Judge Torrance are very agreeable companions until you mention the subject of ‘Winfield.’ The best course after the conversation takes that turn is to skip for any place where you can get out of sight.”

Excerpts from lengthy article. Excerpt pertains to Torrance and Hackney...

                                       OUR TOPEKA CORRESPONDENCE.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, February 26, 1885.

Senator Hackney was up last week and is responsible for the biggest sell of the session. In the early stages of the effort to create the Nineteenth Judicial district, which takes Sumner County from Judge Torrance’s jurisdiction, Mr. Hackney opposed it and wrote several letters to friends here on the subject. This came to the care of the Wellington fellows and they immediately sat down on their tails and commenced to howl! After further consideration of the matter and in conformity to the wishes of many friends, Mr. Hackney withdrew his objections, and the bill passed the House and went to the Senate. Thursday evening a giant scheme was concocted and the following dispatch was sent.

WM. A. McDONALD, Wellington, Ks.

Hackney with a Winfield mob is here with their coats off fighting Judicial bill. Senators Jennings, Buchan, and Blue are with them. I am powerless. Come and bring every man who will on first train. Don’t delay. Important sure. Don’t pay any attention to any dispatch sent from here in my name. Look out for a trick. Treachery everywhere. Signed, LINK.

Senator Lingenfelter is the member of that body from Sumner and the signature was very easily construed to mean him. In addition to this a dozen other dispatches were sent to the mayor, clerk, and other leading citizens, referring them to the above dispatch. As every man, woman, and child in Sumner has been staking their hopes of future happiness on the new judicial district bill, one can imagine what consternation these dispatches created. Immediately the hosts were collected, a picked crowd of the bravest and most valiant warriors selected, a collection taken up, and with blood in every eye they proceeded to march on the capital. On Friday morning just at break of day they filed by twos into the corridor of the Copeland, commander-in-chief McDonald and A. Q. M. General Reed leading the van and proceeded to stack arms and provide ammunition. Senator Lingenfelter was aroused from slumber sweet to counsel with the warriors on the terrible situation. When the “true inwardness” of the matter began to unfold itself, there was roaring and gnashing of teeth followed by scenes that would make a peaceable prohibitionist shudder to repeat, but suffice it to say that from that day until it falls into the hands of some county-seat census taker, the Copeland register will contain the names of a long list of Wellington’s distinguished citizens as “guests of Bill Hackney and Dick Walker.” If it will help the matter any, I might intimate that Senator Ed. Hewins wasn’t an entire stranger to the scheme. The bill finally passed the Senate with but two opposing votes on the day they were here. The occurrence was the talk of the town for several days.


The session is drawing to a close and the calendar is still encumbered with two or three hundred bills, with as many more in the Senate. Most of them cannot, by any possibility, be got through before the fifty days for which the members can receive pay expires. It requires a great deal of patriotism to “work for nothing and board yourself,” so the possibility of a “raid on the treasury” for postage stamps with which to pay board bills is imminent. I sound this warning note so that my legal friend who hurls Blackstone at the court with one hand and writes of the deep and damnable corruption of the servants of the people with the other, may throw himself into an undivided state into the breach and save the one millionth part of a mill which a thieving legislature might rob him of. Up, Brutus, and at him!!

                                                             E. P. GREER.

                                            DISTRICT COURT CULLINGS.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, March 5, 1885.

E. S. Jaffery & Co. vs. Day Bros. & Co. Plaintiffs given leave to withdraw exhibits attached to petition.

Merrick Thread Co. vs. Lucius L. Day, et al. Judgment by default for $238, and in case defendants do not pay same in 30 days, property to be attached and held on execution.

Monotuck Silk Co. vs. Lucius L. Day, et al. Judgment by default for $1,142.62, and if not paid in 30 days, property to be attached.

Anna Mount vs. John M. Mount. Rule to show cause issued against defendant returnable on the 16th of March at 10 o’clock p.m., why he should not pay temporary alimony pending this action, and restraining him in the meanwhile from disposing of his property.

James L. Huey vs. Franklin P. Schiffbauer. Judgment by default for $340.60 and interest at 10 percent, with costs.

Ray Warren vs. R. C. Jones, et al. Dismissed at cost of plaintiff.

Traveler’s Insurance Co. vs. Mathew S. Hooker, et al. Judgment by default, for $748.80 and interest at 12 percent; foreclosure of mortgage and sale without appraisement, barring interest of all defendants; proceeds to be applied first to costs and second to judgment.

James H. Tallman vs. Nathaniel Holden, et al. Judgment by default for $1,184.85 and interest at 12 percent from date; foreclosure of mortgage and sale without appraisement and proceeds to be first applied to costs and then to judgment.

Traveler’s Insurance Co. vs. Myron L. Munson, et al. Judgment by default for $886.08 and interest at 12 percent; foreclosure, etc., without appraisement.

W. T. Curtis vs. H. G. Fuller, et al. Dismissed with prejudice.

Appeal of C. W. Gregory from Commissioners. Judgment in favor of plaintiff for $106 and he adjudged to pay costs.

M. P. Rowe appeared before Judge Torrance Friday, received a sentence of $100 fine and costs for illegally dispensing the ardent, and paid the bill. He was convicted at the beginning of the term but judgment was deferred to give him an opportunity to raise the lucre.

Court adjourned Monday to the April term. Every case on the dockets that was ready for trial was disposed of.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, March 12, 1885.

                                                   ALLEN & CALDWELL,

                                                   INSURANCE AGENTS.

                                                (Successors to Noble Caldwell.)

                           Risks Written in Fire, Lightning, Tornado and Life Insurance.


Represent the widely known and solid German Insurance Company, of Freeport, Illinois, which makes a specialty of Farm Risk against Fire, Lightning and Tornado; also other sound companies.

Are Agents for The Mutual Trust Fund Life Association and the Mutual Benefit Life Association, of New York, conducted on the assessment plan, and furnishing the safest and cheapest plan of Life Insurance known.

Also Agents of the Metropolitan Safety Fund Accident Association, of Chicago for accident insurance.

                        Office in Fuller-Torrance Block, Main Street, Winfield, Kansas.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, March 19, 1885.

G. H. ALLEN.                   NOBLE CALDWELL.

                                                    ALLEN & CALDWELL

                                                   INSURANCE AGENTS.

The only exclusive Insurance Agency in town. Risks written in Fire, Lightning, Tornado, Life and Accidental Insurance with the best Companies. Farm risks written in the German, of Freeport, Illinois.

                      Office in Fuller-Torrance Block, Main Street, Winfield, Kansas.

Excerpts...

Winfield Courier, Thursday, March 26, 1885.

The City “Dads” held an adjourned session Monday evening.

The committee previously appointed to report territory for incorporation recommended that the city attorney commence legal proceedings at once to have the following described tracts of land added to the city’s corporate limits: Beginning at the northwest corner of the Moorehouse property, near the railroad crossing to the Tunnel mill; running along the township line to the southeast corner of Howland’s quarter, then north to the northeast corner of same quarter, then east 80 rods, then north one mile to the northeast corner of same quarter, then east 80 rods, then north one mile to the northeast corner of west half of Dr. Davis’ quarter; then west three-fourths mile to northeast corner of Vandeventer quarter; then south to Manny’s brewery; then following on south side of Dutch Creek and east side of the Walnut to west line of right of way of the Santa Fe railroad; then following railroad south to corporation line. The report was adopted, and the city attorney will proceed at once to file the proper petition before Judge Torrance and the hearing is set for the 20th of April.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, March 26, 1885.

The District Court for Cowley comes a month earlier under the law changing this district.

The next term opens the first Saturday in April.

Arkansas City Republican, April 4, 1885.

District court will convene next Tuesday with Judge Torrance on the bench. A full docket is to be ground out.

                                                     OUR NEW DENTIST.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, April 9, 1885.


Dr. J. G. Houx has fitted up his dentist rooms in the Torrance & Fuller block in first class shape. Dr. Houx was the first dentist Winfield had,—in 1873. He afterwards removed to Columbus, but after ten years absence, returns to his early stamping ground. He has a state reputation as a skillful dentist and we are glad to chronicle his return.

Arkansas City Republican, April 11, 1885.

                                                            District Court.

From the Daily Courier we glean the proceedings of the mill of justice.

Court met Tuesday morning and went through a few cases. The term will last six weeks and the docket is quite heavy.

A. P. Johnson was appointed to act as County Attorney in the case of the State against D. P. Hurst, Mr. Asp being disqualified by reasons of his connections with the case before election.

Case of State against Kimmell was set for next Monday.

State vs. Isaac Frier was stricken from the docket.

The bailiffs for this term are T. A. Blanchard and R. Farnsworth.

In the divorce case of Anna Mount against John H. Mount, the divorce was granted, also forty dollars to Mrs. Mount with which to pay costs.

On Wednesday the case of D. F. Best for disturbing the peace of an Arkansas City individual some time ago, was the first case called in the District Court. He was acquitted.

Dr. Burge plead guilty to one count on charge of illegally prescribing liquor. Judgment deferred to Monday. The regular jury was dismissed until next Monday.

State vs. Dennis P. Hurst, assault with intent to kill—defendant waived arraignment, and a plea of guilty to simple assault was accepted by County Attorney Asp. Judgment deferred.

State vs. Lewis C. Rice, adultery—nullified.

State vs. R. H. McGinnis, assault with intent to kill. Case continued.

Thursday was a big day. The case of the state vs. V. W. Akin, violation of the old prohibitory law, at Tannehill, was tried by the court, and the defendant acquitted. This is a very peculiar case, appealed from Justice Snow’s court. Last fall J. H. Watts and Akin started to Winfield. When they reached Tom Poor’s, Watts proposed to Akin that the latter go in and procure a pint of whiskey, and gave him a half dollar to pay for it. Somebody got wind of this and had Poor arrested for selling it. Of course, Watts and Akin were the principal witnesses, and the latter swore that Poor refused the money and merely loaned them the liquor. But Akin wasn’t quite cute enough to engineer his story through and left the kink of his having kept the fifty cents given him by Watts, thus getting himself into Poor’s shoes. Poor was then discharged and Akin arrested. Judge Torrance held that as both drank the liquor, there could be no delivery excepting on the part of Poor—the two being the receivers—and therefore no violation of the old law.

The bond of Alice Jeffries, charged with being an accomplice in the Smith & Zook safe burglary last January, was forfeited and her case continued to the next term. New bonds fixed at $9,000.

The case against Lewis for burglarizing this safe, will be dismissed, and he will plead guilty to jail-breaking. Having been caught emerging from the three-foot tunnel made under the wall of the jail, he couldn’t get out of that charge. The penalty is imprisonment in the “pen” not exceeding two years or more than six months in the county bastille.

The case of David Hahn against Isaac Wood, sued for damages, was dismissed at cost of plaintiff.


In the case of the city against Henry Brown, jury was waived. Case pending.

S. T. Sheets, against E. M. Godfrey—case dismissed at cost of plaintiff, for want of prosecution.

B. W. Matlack against N. B. Beebe et al—dismissed with prejudice at cost of plaintiff.

The Standard Implement Company vs. Allison Toops—dismissed on motion of plaintiff.

J. A. Wallace vs. J. W. Henthorn et al—on plaintiff’s motion was dismissed.

Jeremiah Weakly vs. Burton D. Guinn et al—tried by court and judgment for defendants. Judgment set aside and new trial ordered for next term.

Frances M. Mallett vs. Burton D. Guinn—same order.

Wesley Mallett vs. Burton D. Guinn—same order.

Isaac L. Newman vs. William H. Speers et al—defendant Speers was given leave to answer by Monday next.

James T. Shephard vs. Robert J. Maxwell—jury waived.

W. A. Lee vs. W. R. Brannon—continued by consent.

B. W. Matlack vs. John W. Gibson—jury waived.

B. W. Matlack vs. Sarah Wycoff—dismissed at plaintiff’s cost with prejudice.

B. W. Matlack vs. Wm. Vansick [Vansickle]—continued by consent and defendant given leave to answer by the 20th inst.

N. R. Branson vs. W. A. Lee et al—continued by consent.

Grace May Weston et al vs. Eliza Cronin—judgment by default, and S. H. Myton, B. F. Wood, and J. W. Connor appointed to partition real estate.

H. E. Silliman vs. Edward Iles et al—dismissed on motion of Plaintiff.

Court adjourned this evening to Monday next.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, April 16, 1885.

Dr. H. J. Downey, of Caldwell, Ohio, has opened his neat and commodious office in the Torrance-Fuller building, where he can be found always ready for calls. The Doctor comes to us well recommended as a physician and a gentleman, and we have no hesitancy in commending him to the people of Cowley County.

                                                DISTRICT COURT GRIST.

                      What the Mill of Justice Ground Out During the Past Week.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, April 16, 1885.

                                                             THURSDAY.


The case of the State against V. W. Akin, violation of the old prohibitory law, at Tannehill, was tried by the Court, and the defendant acquitted. This is a very peculiar case, appealed from Justice Snow’s Court. Last fall J. H. Watts and Akin started to Winfield. When they reached Tom Poor’s, Watts proposed to Akin that the latter go in and procure a pint of whiskey, and gave him a half dollar to pay for it. Somebody got wind of this and had Poor arrested for selling it. Of course, Watts and Akin were the principal witnesses, and the latter swore that Poor refused the money and merely loaned them the liquor. But Akin wasn’t quite cute enough to engineer his story through and left the kink of his having kept the fifty cents given him by Watts, thus getting himself into Poor’s shoes. Poor was then discharged and Akin arrested. Judge Torrance held that as both drank the liquor, there could be no delivery excepting on the part of Poor—the two being the receivers—and therefore no violation to the old law.

The bond of Alice Jeffries, charged with being an accomplice in the Smith & Zook safe burglary last January, was forfeited and her case continued to the next term. New bonds fixed at $9,000. The case against Lewis for burglarizing this safe will be dismissed, and he will plead guilty to jail-breaking. Having been caught emerging from the three foot tunnel made under the wall of the jail, he couldn’t get out of that charge. The penalty is imprisonment in the “pen” not exceeding two years or more than six months in the County Bastille.

The case of David Hahn against Isaac Wood, sued for damages, was dismissed at cost of plaintiff.

In the case of the City against Henry Brown, jury was waived. Case pending.

S. T. Sheets, against E. M. Godfrey: case dismissed at cost of plaintiff, for want of prosecution.

B. W. Matlack against N. B. Beebe et al: dismissed with prejudice at cost of plaintiff.

The Standard Implement Company vs. Allison Toops: dismissed on motion of plaintiff.

J. A. Wallace vs. J. W. Henthorn et al: on plaintiff’s motion, was dismissed.

Jeremiah Weakly vs. Burton D Guinn et al: tried by court and judgment for defendants. Judgment set aside and new trial ordered for next term.

Frances M. Mallett vs. Burton D. Guinn: same order.

Wesley Mallett vs. Burton D. Guinn: same order.

Isaac L. Newman vs. William H. Speers et al: defendant Speers was given leave to answer by Monday next.

James T. Shephard vs. Robert J. Maxwell: jury waived.

W. A. Lee vs. W. R. Branson: continued by consent.

B. W. Matlack vs. John W. Gibson: jury waived.

B. W. Matlack vs. Sarah Wycoff: dismissed at the plaintiff’s cost, with prejudice.

B. W. Matlack vs. Wm. Vansickle: continued by consent and defendant given leave to answer by the 20th inst.

N. R. Branson vs. W. A. Lee, et al: continued by consent.

Grace May Weston et al vs. Eliza Cronin: judgment by default, and S. H. Myton, B. F. Wood, and J. W. Connor appointed to partition real estate.

H. E. Silliman vs. Edward Iles et al: dismissed on motion of plaintiff.

Court adjourned this evening to Monday next.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, April 16, 1885.

                                                               MONDAY.

The District Court opened this morning after a few days adjournment, Judge Torrance being much refreshed by the cessation.

In the case of the State vs. W. I. Burge, illegally prescribing liquor under the old law, the defendant having plead guilty to the 10th count of the indictment, he was fined $100 and costs and recognizance of $250 required to keep the peace for two years.

State vs. F. M. Moreland and G. W. Estus, arrested last week for stealing two horses from the boomers. Defendants arraigned and plead guilty. Sentence deferred.

James Jordan vs. Winfield City, Walnut Township, et al: Walnut township given leave to file an amendment to its answer and plaintiff given fifteen days to reply.


Belle R. Williams vs. A. P. Johnson: Trial by the court and finding for defendant, plaintiff to pay costs.

J. A. Field & Co. vs. Brotherton & Silver: Continued by consent.

A motion for new trial in the State vs. E. Kimel, highway robbery, was granted and bail fixed at $500.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, April 16, 1885.

                                                               TUESDAY.

The District Court held only a short session today, but three cases having been set for disposal, and they were ground out in short meter.

The case of Arkansas City vs. Wm. Blakeney, violation of city ordinance, was dismissed on motion of plaintiff, to whom was assessed the costs, and the defendant was discharged.

Lewis Conover vs. Pink Fouts, an attachment appeal: dismissed for want of prosecution, plaintiff to pay costs.

James E. Allen vs. C. C. Waltz, action for $100, for work and labor, appealed from Judge Kreamer, Arkansas City. Dismissed for want of prosecution at cost of plaintiff.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, April 16, 1885.

                                                           WEDNESDAY.

The District Court is taking it easy this term. Four cases were up today, and not being ready for trial, were continued, letting the Court off with a few hours session. These cases were “Schuster, Tootle & Co., vs. G. B. Sigler, Smith Frazee & Co., vs. G. B. Sigler, and two cases of Stout & Wingert vs. S. S. Baker, et al.”

Judge Torrance described...

Winfield Courier, Thursday, April 23, 1885.

Judge Torrance came out Sunday in a new spring suit, light and as clean-cut as a swan’s wing. The Judge retains in his maturer years many of the fancies and follies of younger days—even to wearing a swallow-tailed ulster as a recognition of the return of spring.

                                         THE INCORPORATION MATTER.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, April 23, 1885.

The matter of taking additional territory into the city limits came up before Judge Torrance yesterday evening, and was postponed to Monday next. Bliss & Wood, Col. Loomis, A. J. Thompson, D. C. Beach, A. A. Howland, the Highland Park Company, and others appeared to protest. The point was made that a mistake occurred in the publication of the late law enabling cities of the second class to extend their corporate limits, the official State paper omitting one section. An enrolled copy of the original bill, from Auditor McCabe, has been sent for.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, April 23, 1885.

Judge Torrance got home this morning from a day at Kansas City, and immediately set the District Court to grinding. The day has been taken up with the case of A. H. Green against D. F. Best, suit to set aside a lease. The lease is for the store-room now occupied by Mr. Best. The lease reads for the whole building, Mr. Green claiming a mistake in its execution, which should have been for only the lower part. Trial by the court.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, April 30, 1885.


P. S. Hills, Wm. M. Jenkins, and T. J. Stafford were before the district court this afternoon for examination for admittance to the bar, M. G. Troup, S. D. Pryor, and Will T. Madden being the committee of examination. Their examination was commenced last week and postponed. Stafford’s main qualification seems to be adamantine cheek. He was examined last fall and failed. Some weeks ago he went to Topeka, fell in with some attorney, and on the representation that he was a practitioner in the District and Inferior Courts of the State, motion was made and he was admitted to the Supreme Court bar. When he came up this time for examination, Judge Torrance had been informed as to Stafford’s Topeka fraud and refused to proceed until the matter was ferreted. A week’s interim brought out the proof as above, and today the gentleman’s application was sat down upon. He will be disbarred from the Supreme Court, and left as a sheep without a fold. He has been practicing in the Justice courts of Arkansas City for some time past, and claims to have had experience in the different courts of Iowa. But his talents failed to connect here. This same gentleman worked upon the credulity of the City Council of the Terminus, and got the nomination for City Attorney, which matter was laid over awaiting his admittance to the District Court. Of course, he’ll get left there now. Lucky Arkansas City! Stafford plead innocence of fraud in his Topeka admittance. But the Court and committee couldn’t see it that way. He is a young man of much pretension, aged about thirty. He is now a sadder but wiser man. Messrs. Hills and Jenkins are honorable, well-read young men, and will probably be admitted, with honors.

Torrance goes to Newton to see sister: name not given...

Winfield Courier, Thursday, May 7, 1885.

The District Court is still grinding, with over a week’s work yet before it. G. B. Shaw & Co. against Irwin D. Franklin, et al—continued by consent of the court. Hattie D. Appling vs. Edward H. Appling—divorce decreed the plaintiff on grounds of abandonment, with custody of children, she to pay the costs. Lydia J. Johnson vs. William H. Johnson—divorce given on grounds of cruelty, she awarded custody of the two children, with $175 alimony; defendant to pay costs. Judge Torrance left yesterday afternoon to meet a sister at Newton, who would pass through there going east—possibly his only opportunity for years to see her. Judge G. H. Buckman is presiding in his absence, and a mighty dignified and handsome judge he makes. That bewitching wink spreads tranquility and good will all around. The jury in the case of Andrews & Losure vs. Dick Gates, suit to recover contract price for painting and graining Dick’s house, after being out thirty hours, was dismissed. It stood eight for plaintiffs and four for defendant. The case will continue to next term. The wealth involved is $24—costs of suit so far, $150.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, May 7, 1885.

Judge Torrance reset the District Court docket this morning, extending to the 14th inst. The court has been grinding away all day on the case of Andrews & Losure vs. Dick Gates.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, May 7, 1885.


Four victims who had run against the cold arms of the law, and been languishing in durance vile in our bastille, were arraigned before Judge Torrance yesterday afternoon and sentenced to the “pen.” All plead guilty. Charley Lewis, who was in the tolls, charged with burglarizing Smith & Zook’s safe last winter, was given two years for jail breaking. The burglary case against him was dismissed for want of evidence. Had Lewis quietly reveled in the luxuries of the bastille without so cruelly tearing up the floor and ground in trying to tunnel out, he would now be enjoying sweet liberty. His love of freedom put on the iron bands. He is a gentlemanly looking fellow of about thirty—but undoubtedly too familiar with the modes of jail breaking. F. M. Moreland and G. W. Estus, who, with an audacity and cruelty horrible to behold, stole two horses from the poor, forlorn boomers, at Arkansas City a month ago, were given three years each. They were captured near Medicine Lodge. Both of them were at one time in the employ of Cal Ferguson, one at the stable here and the other on the Territory stage line. This was their first trial at horse stealing. They are 24 and 28 years old. Thos. Corbin was sent up for one year for appropriating the proceeds from two loads of wheat, $46. He took the wheat to Arkansas City for another man, sold it, shoved the money into his own trousers, and decamped. But he only got to Grouse creek. One year for silent, awful remorse. He is a good-looking, genteel appearing young man of twenty-two. All took their sentence more like a huge joke than the stern, terrible reality it will prove to be. Sheriff McIntire left this afternoon for the “pen” with the victims.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, May 14, 1885.

The legal mill has ceased to grind, awaiting the return of Judge Torrance. There are only a few minor cases remaining. The Judge has gone eastward for several days.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, May 21, 1885.

Judge Torrance returned from his Southern trip Monday noon, and convened Court at 3 o’clock. In the case of Teters and McKinley against R. B. Waite, a motion for a new trial was overruled. Mr. Waite will take the case to the Supreme Court. Court adjourned till Friday the 5th day of June, when several important motions will be heard.

Arkansas City Traveler, May 27, 1885.

                                                      A Conflict of Authority.

There is a question of authority raised on the fitness of our city attorney to practice in the district court of this county. The Republican says: “The writer in the TRAVELER willfully misrepresents when he says Stafford is qualified to practice in any (our neighbor meaning every) court in this state.” The certificate of admission held by Mr. Stafford to practice in the supreme court of Kansas, sets forth as follows: “It is therefore ordered by the court that the said T. J. Stafford, be, and he is hereby, admitted to the practice of the law in the district courts inferior thereto in the State of Kansas.” The diploma issued to him by the district court of Shawnee County holds nearly similar language. In order to test whether these declamations meant what they stood for, or were a mere glittering generality, the city attorney, among other questions, addressed the following to Attorney General Bradford: “Does a certificate of the district court of one county and district, issued to an attorney, authorize said attorney to practice in any other county or district in the state?” To which the attorney-general answered with an unqualified, “Yes.”


The Republican, to wriggle out of the false position it has assumed, makes the silly statement that a certificate of admission to the supreme court is very easily obtained. “It is only a courtesy extended to any lawyer.” We would inquire, “How about a certificate of admission to an inferior court?” The district court of Shawnee County, for instance. Is that merely “a courtesy extended to any lawyer?” If admission to practice in one district of a state confers the right to practice in all the district courts of the same state, as the certificate sets forth, with what color of truth can our jaundiced cotem declare that for Mr. Stafford to practice in the district court of Cowley County, “is at the option of Judge Torrance?” His Honor does not authorize such a declaration because this would place his court in conflict with the judicial system of the state, and a refusal to admit our city attorney to plead in his court would set him in contempt to a superior tribunal. The necessity is imposed on our too hasty neighbor of eating his own words, and this is never a nutritious diet.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, May 28, 1885.

Judge Torrance is grinding the mill of justice in Elk County, at Howard. We have an adjourned term June 5th.

                                                           LAND SLIDES.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, May 28, 1885.

The following are the real estate transfers filed in the office of Register of Deeds yesterday.

                E. S. Torrance to Harriet Picket, lot 11 Torrance ad to Winfield: $450.00.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, June 4, 1885.

Judge E. S. Torrance came over from Howard, where he is courting, to Sunday with his family. The trial of Etherly for killing in cold blood his father in-law at Elk Falls is now in the justice mill and drawing intense concern.

                         Etherly, the Elk Falls Murderer, Escapes While On Trial.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, June 4, 1885.

Sheriff McIntire received a dispatch today announcing that L. J. Etherly, who murdered J. M. Messmore, his father-in-law, at Elk Falls some weeks ago, escaped last night. He wore side-whiskers about a week old; moustache; cark clothes with light mixture; white spot in center of button; small, mouse colored wool hat; gray blue eyes; thirty years old; five feet, eleven inches high, and weighs one hundred and seventy pounds. Three hundred dollars reward is offered for his capture. Etherly was on trial at Howard, with Judge Torrance presiding. No particulars yet as to the manner of his escape. He is a desperate character and a bad man generally.

                                                           A NEW TRIAL.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, June 11, 1885.

J. H. Etherly, who murdered his father-in-law at Elk Falls, and whose cute escape and speedy recapture during his trial at Howard, was chronicled in THE COURIER last week, was granted a new trial. The jury found him guilty of murder in the second degree, but was guilty of such misconduct during the trial as to compel Judge Torrance to grant a new trial. Violating their oaths, several of them, while the jury was separated, received their mail and read accounts of the murder. One of the jurymen went to Mrs. Etherly’s house. She had been a witness against her husband and told the juror that her husband was guilty and ought to die. Then the bailiff, with an ignorance inexcusable, allowed the jury to play cards and otherwise deport themselves unbecomingly. The jury was cuttingly rebuked by Judge Torrance, and a warrant issued for the arrest of the one visiting Etherly’s wife, for contempt of court, but he skipped before it could be served. The case cost Elk a thousand dollars. More evidence is being formulated, and the prisoner will probably be convicted of murder in the first degree in the next trial.

                                               ADDITIONAL TERRITORY.


Winfield Courier, Thursday, June 11, 1885.

Judge Torrance came home Sunday, having closed Court at Howard. The incorporation matter came up in chambers before him Monday. The kickers composed about all whose property is in the proposed boundaries: Col. Loomis, A. A. Howland, D. C. Beach, A. J. Thompson, The Highland Park Company, and others. Joseph O’Hare appeared for the city and M. G. Troup, J. F. McMullen, S. D. Pryor, and other attorneys for clients. The Judge has the matter under consideration, having postponed his decision to the 29th inst. He is undecided as to the power of an administering officer in this matter.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, June 11, 1885.

Judge Torrance left Monday to open court at Sedan, Chautauqua County.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, June 18, 1885.

Judge E. S. Torrance came in from Sedan Sunday, having ground out Chautauqua County’s District Court grist in a week. The Judge says that many farmers in that section are planting their corn for the third time, and are badly discouraged. With the flood, the worms, and other vicissitudes, the people of our sister county are having a tough time.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, June 25, 1885.

Several papers are chronicling the fact that Etherly, the murderer of his father-in-law, Messmore, at Elk Falls, was sentenced to twenty-one years in the penitentiary, and appending very pathetic morals. Now, if they would read up—read THE DAILY COURIER, they would find the fact chronicled a month ago that Etherly was granted a new trial. He was convicted, but through the gross misconduct of some of the jurymen, Judge Torrance was compelled to grant a new trial. A warrant was issued for one of the jurors, for contempt of court, but he skipped before it could be served.

Judge Torrance’s addition...

Winfield Courier, Thursday, June 25, 1885.

F. W. Cochrane puts up the first house on Judge Torrance’s addition, just south of the east ward schoolhouse. Mr. Cochrane will put up a house 30 x 30, two story. B. W. Honold does the work.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, June 25, 1885.

Judge Torrance, of Winfield, has been invited to deliver the oration at Douglass on the 4th. The Judge has a warm place in the hearts of the Douglass people and we hope he will come. Douglass Tribune.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, July 2, 1885.

The matter of the constitutionality of the new incorporation law came up before Judge Torrance Monday. The city attorney fired in points of law in its favor, while the kickers shot legal lore against. The Judge takes the matter under consideration until Thursday. It is a question of vital interest to Winfield, and its adjustment is awaited with much interest.

                                         JUDGE TORRANCE’S DECISION.

              On the Petition to Extend the Corporate Limits of the City of Winfield.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, July 9, 1885.

At Chambers, before the Judge of the District Court of Cowley County.

Petition of the City Council of the City of Winfield, for an Order Extending the Corporate Limits of said City.


An act of the legislature which authorizes the District Court, on petition of the city council, to enlarge the corporate limits of a city, when in the judgment of the court it is advisable, and will advance the interests of the city, and will cause no manifest injury to private rights, by the annexation of unlimited territory lying adjacent to the city limits, and which act does not specify the facts or conditions upon which said annexation shall depend, except that the territory to be annexed shall be adjacent to the existing corporate limits of the city, is unconstitutional and void for two reasons:

First: Because it assumes to confer upon a judicial court powers not of a judicial character; and

Second: Because it is an attempt on the part of the legislature to delegate legislative power to a tribunal which, under the constitution, can neither receive nor exercise any delegated legislative power whatever.

This is an application by the City Council of the city of Winfield for an order extending the corporate limits of said city over a large extent of territory lying adjacent thereto. The application is made under the provisions of an act of the Legislature passed at its last session, and published as chapter 97 of the Session Laws of 1885. Notice of the application was given by the City Council as required by the act. At the time and place fixed by the notice for the hearing of the application, several of the owners of real estate, included in the territory sought to be brought into the city limits by this proceeding, appeared by their attorneys and objected to the hearing of the matter, on the ground that the act is unconstitutional, and therefore ineffectual to confer upon me any jurisdiction to act in the premises.

On consideration of this objection it seems to me that the constitutionality of this act is extremely doubtful. I recognize the fact that Courts, and especially the Judge of a nisi prius court at chambers, should hesitate to declare an act of the Legislature unconstitutional, so long as there is a reasonable doubt as to how the question should be decided. But with my present doubts of the validity of this act, I hesitate more to proceed to incorporate this additional territory within the limits of the city of Winfield, then to declare the act unconstitutional. If this territory should be annexed to the city limits, and my doubts as to the validity of the act should finally prove to be well founded, much useless trouble and expense would be incurred in the meantime, both to the public and private individuals, and probably much more vexatious and expensive litigation than would be involved in having the constitutionality of the act settled in the first instance by the Supreme Court.

I am inclined to the opinion that the act of the Legislature, under which this proceeding is instituted, is unconstitutional for two reasons.

First. It assumes to confer upon the Judiciary of the State functions not of a judicial nature, the Courts of this State being vested by the Constitution with judicial power only. And,

Second. It is an attempt on the part of the Legislature to delegate a part of its legislative power to a tribunal, which, under the constitution, can neither receive nor exercise any delegated legislative power or discretion whatever.

To appreciate the force of these reasons, it becomes necessary to refer to some of the general provisions of this act, and also to some of the provisions of the Constitution of the State.


The act in question provides that whenever the City Council of any city of the second class desires to enlarge the limits thereof from the territory adjacent thereto, the Council shall, in the name of the city, present a petition to the Judge of the District Court of the county in which said city is situated, setting forth by metes and bounds the territory sought to be added, and praying that such territory may be added thereto. Upon such petition being presented to such Judge, he shall proceed to hear testimony as to the advisability of making such addition, and if, upon such hearing, he shall be satisfied that the adding of such territory to the city will be to its interests and will cause no manifest injury to the persons owning real estate in the territory sought to be added, he shall make an order declaring such territory a part of the corporate limits thereof, and subject to the laws and ordinances pertaining thereto. Application for adding separate parcels of territory to such cities may be made in the same petition, and, upon such an application being made, the Judge may order any or all of such parcels added thereto. Any person feeling himself aggrieved by the order of such Judge, may appeal from such order to the District Court of the county in which such city is located, by filing in the office of the Clerk thereof, within ten days after such order is filed in the office of said Clerk, a bond conditioned for the payment of costs.

It will be readily seen from the terms of this act that it was the intention of the Legislature to confer jurisdiction of the subject matter of the act upon the District Court itself, and not merely upon the person holding the office of Judge of said Court, since an appeal lies from the decision of the Judge to the Court over which he presides.

It also plainly appears from the language employed that the Court is to exercise its judgment and discretion in deciding upon the advisability of making the addition, and the extent of it, and in deciding whether the interests of the city will thereby be promoted, and whether manifest injury will be done to persons owning real estate in the territory sought to be attached.

Section 1 of Article 2 of our State Constitution provides that “The Legislative power of this State shall be vested in a House of Representatives and Senate.”

Section 1 of Article 3 of the same Constitution provides that “The judicial power of this State shall be vested in a Supreme Court, District Courts, Probate Courts, Justices of the Peace, and such other Courts, inferior to the Supreme Court, as may be provided by law.”

The Constitution also provides for the Executive department, which is separate and distinct from both the legislative and judicial branches of the State government.

It is evident from the provisions of our own constitution, and the similar features to be found in the general framework of all American Constitutions, both State and Federal, as well as from the whole history of constitutional law in this country, that it was the intention of the people that the exercise of legislative, executive, and judicial functions should belong to separate and distinct departments. And these different classes of powers having been distributed to different departments by authority of the same instrument, there is an implied exclusion of each department from exercising the functions conferred upon either of the others.


The Government of the United States is one of enumerated powers, and Congress has only such legislative power as is expressly granted to it by the Federal Constitution, or given by necessary implication. But not so with the State legislature. In creating the legislative department of this State the people by the adoption of the constitution, granted and entrusted to the legislature full and complete power and authority, and the sole responsibility of making all the laws for the people, subject to such restrictions and exceptions as are contained in the constitution itself, and the limitations which are imposed by the constitution of the United States.

And so in respect of the judiciary of the State, our constitution confers upon it judicial power—full, complete, and exclusive it is true—but only judicial power.

Under our system of government it is the exclusive province of the legislature to make the law, and to alter and repeal it whether existing in the form of prior statutes, or in the principles of the common law, and it is the sole function of the courts to interpret the law as they find it to exist, and to apply it to the facts in the decision of cases pending before them. It is not competent to the courts to adopt their own views as a legal criterion by which to determine questions of right and wrong between private individuals, or private individuals and the public. It is true courts must adjudicate upon and enforce and protect the rights of all persons lawfully coming or brought before them, in so far as such rights inhere in a subject matter within their jurisdiction, but in so doing their decisions and judgments must be controlled, directed, and moulded by the law itself—that is by those rules of civil conduct which the legislative will has prescribed. It may be said that it is a judicial act to determine what are the facts in a particular case, and whether they bring the case within the operation of some provision or principle of the law. It is true that such determination requires the exercise of judgment and discretion, and, if it pertains to a subject matter of a judicial nature, and the power or duty of making it is conferred upon a judicial tribunal, then it becomes a judicial act. But, before the determination can be made, the provision or principle of law must first exist, and must contain a rule of action sufficiently definite to guide the judgment of the court, and enable it to apply the rule to the facts of the case. If the act in question had specified the facts and conditions upon which the annexation of additional territory to the corporate limits of a city should depend, and had referred the duty of determining the existence of such facts and conditions to the district court, there would be more room for an argument that such determination would be a judicial act. But this act specifies no facts upon which the annexation shall depend, and the only condition belonging to the land to be annexed, which the act mentions, is that it must be adjacent to the corporate limits. Now, it seems to me that property to be annexed must of necessity be adjacent or contiguous to the corporate limits, in order to subserve the general purposes and uses of the corporation, and that the naming of this single condition furnishes no definite rule or guide whatever. But if the whole subject of the incorporation and regulation of municipal corporations, including the enlargement and diminution of corporate limits, is a matter purely of legislative power and discretion, as I will presently attempt to show, then it would be doubtful whether the determination of a matter arising under the act in question would be a judicial act, although the facts and conditions upon which the annexation should depend had been specified in the act itself.


It seems to me that a court does not exercise judicial power when it determines a question, the decision of which merely involves the individual notions of the judge as to what is expedient to be done to subserve the public interests of a municipality. And it seems to me from the fact that judicial power alone has been vested in the courts by the constitution, leaving out of view the argument to be drawn from the distribution of the powers of the government to separate departments, that the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius is applicable, and that it was the intention of the framers of the constitution that the courts should possess no powers of a different nature, at least no powers which do not in some just sense partake of a judicial character.

It was contended by counsel representing the city council, on the argument of this application, that because the judiciary article of the constitution left the jurisdiction of the district courts to be determined by the legislature, that it therefore follows that the legislature may confer upon them jurisdiction of any matter which it deems expedient. In the interpretation of any written instrument all of its provisions must be looked at for the purpose of ascertaining its true meaning. By applying this rule it is clearly apparent, not only from the provisions of the judiciary article itself, but also from the fact that the other powers of the government are apportioned to other distinct departments, that the legislature is authorized to confer upon the district courts jurisdiction of such matters only as call for the exercise of judicial power.

I have offered such reasons as have occurred to my mind which tend to show that cases which may arise under the act in question cannot be judicially determined under the provisions of the act itself, as well as some reasons tending to show that the general subject matter of the act does not relate to a question which calls for the exercise of judicial power.

If the creation and regulation of municipal corporations, including the extension of their corporate limits, is not a judicial question, the inquiry at once arises to what department of the government does this subject pertain. There can be but one answer to this question. The creation of a municipal corporation, and the defining of its corporate powers, involve the exercise of purely and exclusively legislative power. Judge Dillon says, “the proposition which lies at the foundation of the law of corporations of this country is that all corporations, public and private, exist, and can exist, only by virtue of express legislative enactment creating, or authorizing, the creation of, the corporate body. Legislative sanction is absolutely essential to lawful corporate existence.”

In Atchison vs. Bartholow 4th Kans., 142, our own supreme court says, “the creating of corporations and making provisions for the organization of cities, towns, and villages, have so long been regarded as the legitimate exercise of legislative power that it would not only be useless but inexpedient to question the propriety thereof now. All agree that they are the rightful subjects of legislation, and are within the general grant of legislative power contained in section 1 article 2 of the constitution.”

Judge Cooley says that “municipal corporations are mere auxiliaries to the state government in the business of municipal rule.” The question of determining when the public interests require the creation of these aids to the state government is one of the most important trusts committed to legislative discretion. It is a question of public policy only.


Formerly municipal corporations were created, and their corporate powers conferred, under special charters granted by the legislature. But our constitution now provides that the legislature shall pass no special act conferring corporate powers, and requires the legislature to make provision by general law for the organization of cities, towns, and villages. Judge Dillon says, “since the leading object of an American municipal corporation is to invest the inhabitants of a defined locality or place with a corporate existence chiefly for the purposes of local government, it is obvious that the geographical limits or boundaries of the corporation ought to be defined and certain. The boundaries are usually described in the charter or constituent act, or a method is prescribed therein by which they may be ascertained and settled. Because residence within the corporation confers rights and imposes duties upon the residents, and the local jurisdiction of the incorporated place is, in most cases, confined to the limits of the corporation, it is necessary that these limits be definitely fixed. They are established by legislative authority. The power to incorporate a place necessarily includes the power to fix and change the boundaries.

In the case of Wyandotte vs. Wood, 5 Kan. 603, the supreme court of this state decides that the enlarging of municipal boundaries, and thereby extending the laws of the municipality over the annexed territory, is the creation of corporate powers.

In Shumway vs. Bennett, 29 Mich., 464, the Supreme Court of Michigan says: “It is not in the power of the legislature to abdicate its functions, or to subject citizens and their interests to the interference of any but lawful public agencies. The judicial power must be vested in courts. Such legislative and local authority as can be delegated at all must be delegated to the municipal corporations, or local boards and officers. The definition of corporate bounds is second in importance to no corporate interest whatever. If it can be delegated at all, so as to include any but single settlements, it must be delegated to some body recognized by the constitution as capable of receiving such authority, and having local jurisdiction over the territory to be incorporated.”


It seems to me to be unnecessary to further discuss the nature of the power by which municipal corporations are created, and their corporate powers conferred. Now, has the legislature, by the act in question, attempted to exert its legislative will or discretion by determining the circumstances and conditions under which the corporate limits of cities of the second class may be extended? Has it prescribed any limit upon the extension of the city limits? Is not the whole body of land comprising the county, outside the corporate limits of a city, contiguous thereto? Is the court to make an order by which Jonah shall swallow the whale? Is the order to embrace productive farms, agricultural homesteads, and large tracts of land used solely for the purposes of husbandry, or only small parcels of land which have been platted, or are held for speculative prices in anticipation of a coming “boom?” Upon these questions the act is silent, and the legislature has not expressed its will or judgment. It is true the land must be contiguous, but, as before remarked, it would be difficult to annex land which was not contiguous, and it would serve no very useful purpose if it was added. This act looks like an attempt on the part of the legislature to delegate legislative power, and I think it is. And the trouble with it is, that it attempts to delegate such power to a tribunal which has not the shadow of a right to exercise legislative power, under the constitution. By an express provision of the constitution, the legislature may confer upon the tribunals transacting the county business of the several counties such powers of local legislation and administration, as it shall deem expedient. It has also been the immemorial custom to bestow limited powers of local legislation upon municipal corporations. With these exceptions it is incompetent for the legislature to delegate any portion of its legislative power. Where the constitution has located the law-making power it must remain, and the legislature cannot relieve itself of the responsibility thus placed upon it by designating other agencies upon which it shall rest. It is the foregoing considerations which create in my mind a very grave doubt of the constitutionality of the act of the legislature, under which the proceeding is prosecuted, and to the end that this question may be settled before greater complications shall arise, I will decline to entertain this application, which will be dismissed, on the ground that I have no jurisdiction in the premises. The following authorities and adjudged cases, bearing on the questions of law involved in this decision, have been considered by me: 1 Dillon, Mun. Cor. (2nd ed.) Sec 17 and 124, and note on p. 123, referring to Mayor v. Shelton, 1 Head, 24; Cooley Const. Lim. (4th ed.) Pp. 106, 141-143 and 110-112; People v. Carpenter, 24 N. Y., court of appeals, 89; People v. Bennett, 29 Mich., 451; State v. Simons, S. C. Minn., decided Dec. 18, 1884, and reported in Northwestern Reporter Jan. 3, 1885; People v. Nevada, 6 Cal. 143; People v. Provines, 34 id., 520; Burlington v. Leebrick, 43 Iowa, 252; Kayser v. Bremen, 16 Mo. 58; Gibony v. Cape Girardeau, 58 Mo. 141; Kirkpatrick v. the State, 5 Kas. 673; Wyandotte v. Wood, id., 142; Auditor of State v. R. R. Co., 6 id. 500; Fulkerson v. Com’rs, 31 Kan. 128.; Powers v. Com’rs, 8 O. S. 290; Lloyd v. Wayne, S. C. Mich., decided April 9, 1885, and reported in Cent. Law Journal, July 3, 1885.

                                                         E. S. TORRANCE,

                                                    Judge 13th Judicial District.

                          ANOTHER COMMUNICATION ON CITY AFFAIRS.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, July 9, 1885.


Friends have asked me, “Why are you arrested by the city so often, when there seems to be no cause?” I answered Mr. Armstrong, of Tisdale, in this way: “I belong to no ring or clique, but act on my own views as best I know how. But why I should be spotted each time there is a new ordinance to take effect, or a new Marshal makes his entrance on the area of the town site, is more than I can tell. One of the arrests was for stacking hay in the city limits. This ordinance actually prohibited stacking as much as a wagon-box of hay outdoors. I had plenty of hay in one mile of town, and teams to draw it to town. But I saw the situation of my neighbors—widow women with orphan children—compelled to stack their hay outside of the city, to the mercy of thieves, and then pay a dray 25 cents each day to draw them a feed of hay, when they were depending on their cows for almost the whole of their support. To meet this unfair and inhuman ordinance square in the face, I hauled in a large stock of hay and took the consequence. In the District Court Judge Torrance dismissed the case at the cost of the city. In the last twenty days, I have been arrested twice and fined simply for having a few sample machines in front of my implement house. I am on a side street, west 9th avenue. On the day of the last arrest, on east 8th avenue, I noticed about two car loads of salt piled on a platform outside of the sidewalk. On the same day, on Main street, I noticed in front of a hardware store fish poles, pumps, ice chests, rod iron, and other traps, until the sidewalk was not more than six feet wide. I speak of these facts to show that this prosecution is malicious, and is damaging me unjustly over the county. Unprincipled men are using it against me. One editor, in the east part of the county, published my arrest and did not say what for. A man in Colorado saw the item and wrote home to his wife to know what Lee was arrested for. This same paper told its readers that the K. C. & S. W. railroad was just the thing until they found it would miss their town, then cried out with a loud voice that the county would be ruined if the bonds carried. I am in favor of a good city government and wholesome ordinances, such as laying sidewalks, grading streets, making fire limits, draining cess pools, removing hog pens, shutting up disorderly places of business—anything that tends to improve the health of the city and give work to the laboring class and raise our city in the estimation of people abroad. This should be encouraged. But such ordinances as grant the right to a revengeful man to arrest a businessman for having a few sample implements in front of his door simply because in time past he ran over his rye patch and made him a little mad, or grants some young spirt the right to jerk his opponent simply because he sees fit to wear a yellow and black checked coat cut short behind, with tight pants and a jaunty little hat, or to say that a lady must not be found on the streets after a certain hour, or a man shall pay a license to do business when his tax is as much as five men ought to pay, is to make a laughing stock out of us, and damage the welfare of our now prosperous city. The last ordinance will drive away good businessmen that would otherwise locate here.

                                                              W. A. LEE.”

Arkansas City Republican, Saturday, July 11, 1885.

Winfield wants to extend her city limits so as to take in Walnut Township. In regard to the matter the Winfield Tribune says: “Judge Torrance decided last week, in regard to the position of the city council to extend the corporate limits of the city that, as the law empowering him to do so is in all probability unconstitutional, it would be very unwise for him to take action in the matter.”

Arkansas City Republican, Saturday, July 11, 1885.

Judge Torrance was down from Winfield Thursday.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, July 16, 1885.

Judge Torrance took in the Terminus Wednesday and Thursday, seeing steamboat and other novelties. A large party were to take a moonlight excurt down the river Wednesday on the steamer, but the engineer had skipped for St. Louis; and without a licensed engineer, the boat couldn’t lift anchor.

 

                                                COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS.

                              The City Attorney Bounced By a Unanimous Vote.

Arkansas City Traveler, July 22, 1885.

The council chamber was filled on Monday evening with a large attendance of citizens, who evidently expected that a racy entertainment would be provided them by our city fathers. But they were disappointed as the evening passed off quietly. Mayor Schiffbauer presided and held the council strictly to business. City Clerk Benedict being absent in the territory, Frederic Lockley acted in his place. A few trifling bills were allowed. The application of Geo. A. Druitt to build a kitchen of wood or sheet iron on lot 18, block 81, was refused.

A communication from S. S. Stiles, Parsons, Kansas, asking about a grader left with Street Commissioner Moore, was read. That official being referred to said it required three good teams to use it, the owner had guaranteed it could be operated with two teams. He had not the horse flesh necessary, therefore the grader was not available. The city clerk was instructed to inform Mr. Stiles of these facts.


Mr. Dean asked for information in regard to the money allowed for election expenses. He was informed that the county paid the judges and clerks and yet some of these men had drawn pay for their day’s services from the city. The mayor explained that misinformation from county officers had led him to pay some persons employed in the polling places, but the money would be refunded by the county and no man would be paid twice for the same service.

Ordinance No. 19, regulating water rates, was then read; it was passed by sections and then passed as a whole. On motion of Thompson, Mr. Scott, the engineer of the water works, was appointed collector of the water rate.

Resolutions in regard to certain curbing and guttering on Summit Street, were adopted, and ordered published four times in the TRAVELER.

It was now past 10 o’clock and Mr. Dean moved that the council adjourn. Mr. Hight wished to engage the attention of the body a few moments. He said he wished to know whether the two city officials whose resignation had been recommended at the last meeting of the city council had vacated their places. In pursuing this business he wished it understood that he was impelled by no personal feeling; as the representative of his constituency in the first ward and in the interest of the whole city, he was impressed with the fact that some men holding office were a weight upon the city government, and tended to bring its laws into contempt. These men must be got rid of in order to regain popular respect, and ensure efficiency to our administration.

The police judge, Chas. Bryant, in answer to this inquiry, said he had not been derelict in the performance of duty, and therefore felt himself under no obligation to resign. He had been elected by the people, and to them he owed the duty of remaining in office until removed in the manner provided by law.

Mr. Stafford said he had not tendered his resignation because no weight or validity attached to the resolution of the council calling on him to vacate his office. When the position of city attorney was tendered him, several members of the council urged his acceptance. He was duly appointed by the mayor and confirmed by a vote of the council. To throw up his position on a mere clamor, and when he knew he was performing his duties faithfully and honestly, would be unjust to himself, injurious to his family, and disrespectful to the eminent gentlemen in his former state who had testified to his merits as a citizen and his competency as a lawyer. More specific charges than unfounded newspaper reports were necessary to prove his unfitness.

Mr. Dean moved an adjournment, which was not seconded.


Mr. Hight said he was losing no sleep over this business. It was not a question whether the city attorney believed he was doing his duty; the material point was whether his services were acceptable to the people. His unpopularity was a drag-chain; it deprived him of prestige as a public officer, and the fact remained that he lost every suit he prosecuted. It is known he is a stumbling block to the city administration. Newspaper columns had no influences with him (the speaker). It was no dishonor for an official to step down and out. We all have our special aptitude; and the man who finds himself in a position he cannot adequately fill, his clear duty to himself is to get rid of its embarrassments. The speaker needed but one hint from the people he represented that he stood in the way of their interest, to make room for another who could render them better service.

Mr. Dean said the hour was too late to continue this discussion. The vote of its last meeting stood recorded; he was in favor of delaying further proceedings ‘till next week when a full attendance of the council might be expected, and there would be more time.

But Mr. Hight objected to delay. He wished to know if an ordinance was required to remove officers appointed by the council.

The mayor said an appointed officer could be removed for cause on a vote of a majority of the whole council.

Mr. Dean moved to adjourn.

Mr. Thompson thought it would be well to write to Judge Torrance to learn whether the city attorney is allowed to plead in his court.

Mr. Bailey produced the following letter from the Judge, which was read to the council, as follows.

                                               JUDGE TORRANCE REPLIES.

WINFIELD, KANSAS, July 18, 1885.

H. G. BAILEY, Esq.

Dear Sir: In reply to your inquiries in regard to Mr. T. J. Stafford, I make the following statement.

At the January term, 1885, of the District Court, of this county, Mr. Stafford applied for admission to the bar. He failed to pass a satisfactory examination and for that reason was not admitted. Afterwards he went to Topeka and was admitted to practice in the Supreme Court on the representation that he was a practicing lawyer in the state.

Mr. Stafford afterwards, at the April (1885) term of the District court of this county, asked to be examined again as to his qualifications to be licensed to practice law, and I refused to entertain his application on the ground that he had been admitted to practice law in the Supreme Court on the representation that he was a practicing lawyer in the state, when in fact he had not been licensed to practice law. Mr. Stafford claimed that he did not make any intentional misstatement; that he was requested by Mr. Sterns, in the clerk’s office (an old Iowa friend of his) to apply for admission; that he was not acquainted with the statute regulating the admission of persons to practice law in the Supreme Court; that he told Sterns that he was a practicing lawyer at Arkansas City, but did not tell him that he had been licensed to practice law in the District Court; that Sterns introduced him to Mr. Austin, a young lawyer in the Attorney General’s office, and that Mr. Austin moved his admission, and that he (Stafford) did not know what representation Austin made to the court. Under the circumstances, both the examining committee and myself thought it best that Mr. Stafford should not be examined at the time. Afterwards Mr. Stafford went to Topeka, and was admitted in Judge Guthrie’s court on his Iowa certificate, and his license to practice law by Judge Guthrie authorized him to practice law in all the District and inferior courts in the state of Kansas.

I have hesitated to say anything in regard to this matter, although I have been requested to do so by Mr. Dean and other parties, lest I might say something which might be misconstrued to Mr. Stafford’s prejudice. I have given you the facts as I understand them, and leave you and the city council to draw your own conclusions.


                                           Very respectfully, E. S. TORRANCE.

Mr. Stafford remarked that some of the statements made in Judge Torrance’s letter were made on hearsay evidence.

Mr. Hight moved that the office of city attorney be declared vacant on account of incompetency in the incumbent. The vote was by yeas and nays, all the members present voting in the affirmative.

On motion of Mr. Hight, the council adjourned.

Mr. Stafford notified the mayor that he should continue to perform the duties of city attorney.

                                   THE JUDGESHIP IN SUMNER COUNTY.

Winfield Courier, Thursday, July 23, 1885.

There seems to be a great deal of bitterness exhibited in the newspapers of Wellington in regard to the judgeship of the 19th Judicial District. And it seems, from the following interview had with Judge Torrance on his return from Wellington Saturday, that the bitterness does not arise from any lack of qualifications in either of the aspirants for the position, but is to be attributed to other causes.

Reporter: “Well, Judge, where have you been?”

Judge: “At Wellington.”

Reporter: “Is the newspaper war over the judgeship still raging?”

Judge: “Yes, only more so.”

Reporter: “What do you think of it?”

Judge: “Well, that is the way they do things over there this year.”

Reporter: “What is the cause of the bitter personal fight over the candidates?”

Judge: “Some of the Wellington people don’t like Gov. Martin for appointing Judge Ray, and they want to down the Governor by downing Ray.”

Reporter: “What do you think of Judge Ray?”

Judge: “He is a good lawyer, an exemplary man, and will make an excellent judge if selected.”

Reporter: “How about Mr. Reed?”

Judge: “He is a good lawyer and will make a good judge, and the contest ought to be conducted solely on the merits of the respective candidates.”

Reporter: “Which one is the best qualified for Judge?”

Judge: “Well, I do not care to discuss that question; either one is well qualified to discharge the duties of the office, and the friends of both parties, will at the end, regret that personalities have been resorted to.”

Winfield Courier, Thursday, July 23, 1885.

Judge Torrance was over from Winfield Wednesday, and put in the major portion of his time talking to old friends and acquaintances. Our late Judge has a very graceful way of wiping off the perspiration from his alabaster brow, and the warm weather of Wednesday gave him a good chance to show off his accomplishment. Wellingtonian.

Excerpts...

Arkansas City Republican, July 25, 1885.

                                                        Council Proceedings.


Council met in regular session last Monday evening. Present: Mayor Schiffbauer, Councilmen Thompson, Dean, Hight, Davis, and Bailey. As Wm. Benedict was absent, Frederic Lockley was chosen by the mayor to act in his place.

Jake Hight brought up the city attorney and police judge matter again and asked what they were going to do in regard to the resolution of a majority of the council asking them to resign. Both officers refused to accede to the request of the council. A letter was produced by Mr. Bailey from Judge Torrance and which fully bears out  the REPUBLICAN in its stand to have Mr. Stafford ousted. The letter is as follows.

                                          WINFIELD, KANSAS, July 18, 1885.

H. G. BAILEY, Esq. DEAR SIR: In reply to your inquiries in regard to Mr. T. J. Stafford, I make the following statement.

At the January term 1885 of the District Court of this county, Mr. Stafford applied for admission to the bar. He failed to pass a satisfactory examination, and for that reason was not admitted. Afterwards he went to Topeka and was admitted to practice in the supreme court on the representation that he was a practicing lawyer in the state. Mr. Stafford afterwards at the April 1885 term of the District Court of this county asked to be examined again as to his qualifications to be licensed to practice law, and I refused to entertain his application on the ground that he had been admitted to practice law in the supreme court on the representation that he was a practicing lawyer in the state, when in fact he had not been licensed to practice law.

Mr. Stafford claimed that he did not make any intentional misstatement, that he was requested by Mr. Sterns, in the clerk’s office (an old Iowa friend of his) to apply for admission; that he was not acquainted with the statute regulating the admission of persons to practice law in the supreme court; that he told Sterns that he was a practicing lawyer at Arkansas City, but did not tell him that he had been licensed to practice law in the District court; that Sterns introduced him to Mr. Austin, a young l