The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1874-10-30
THE eos.ose-Os CoNrRAcF.

The Emporia Ledger OF last week
contains an article which purports I
to be written by the local editor of |
that paper, 10 the effect that The
contract between Ruggles Sc Plumb |
and Lyon county, in relation TO the
suit against the II. X. s. 7. Z. r.
Co. is void By reason OF the decision
of the Supreme court in the action
of Clough & Wheat rs Hart, ct al
Now every one knows that the az
tiele enanated from the Office Of
Judge Raggles, and was, as every
atty can see, intended to nisiead
the public. The contract is not
voted by reason of that decision.
In that case Clough s. Wheat saed
upon contract made with the
Board of County Commissioners for
legal services. They performed the
services, and sued upon the contract
which was in writing, alleged q
breach of the contract anu asked
for damages. The defendant de-
INJURED TO the petition, which de-
murer was sustained by the District
court, and c. s. W. appealed from
that ruling. The Supreme court
affirmed the decision of the court
below, upon the ground that the Pc
tition did not state facts sufficient
to constitute cause of action,
saying that The contract disclosed
that it was for services that should
have been performed by the County
Atty, the officer provided by law
for that purpose, and as .Clough s.
Wheat had not alleged any facts
showing the necessity for entering
into the contract by the county, rs
for instance that the County Atty
actually needed assistance in thu
matter, ana that the contract wa
made with his consent, the petition
was insufficient.
That decision simply decides:
When q written contract between
Il county and an individual show
upon its face that il was inside b.
the county for the professional ser
vices OF the individual as an aitorn
ey and counselor at law, whicl
services are such as the law re
Quires 10 be performed b.
the county attorney such contract
is fJ'iBen facie cold"
The court say in The case, Judg
Valentine giving the opinion, san
it will also 90 admitted that coun
~ may, with the consent of tn
County Attorney, employ such as
! sistamce for the County Attorney t
the County Attorney may GctuaH
need"
Ruggles 81 Plumb made an III
5 considerable contract with the eouI
+ ty, and Judge Ruggles now desire
. TO avoid the effect of it, By sayin
; this contract ought not to hurt N
any because the Supreme court hG
: helped the county out Of the diIeM
ma tchicb L acas Instrumental an ge
; ting 1T into. a plea or confeasio
| and avoidance is the last one W
| thought he would make.
4 If bfr. Ruggles is sincere
thinking The contract void, and l
f does not wish TO claim any righ
{ under it, why don't he say so to Il
e public over his signature, and +
!, turn the contract to the Board
;, county commissioners for CANCEL
C ton, instead of having the editor
the Ledger father an article statir
it that the contract is void.
:, This decision, which they clai
e makes the contract void was ma,
i at the July term 1871, aud yet Il
=, action was commenced, and all Il
e work which Ruggles 81 Plumb d
C III The action was done after The d
d ciSiOa acdS aa0de.er Can any OIL
IS suppose that Mr. Rugglos would {
all this under an opinion that h
o contract with the county was voit
Y Let the people not be deceived.
10 CAUTION.