The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1874-10-30
.rEaAr Ess4vRACr..

= - - = !
r. IL. Ruggles, one of the leading
lawyers OF the State, has been noui-
mated by the reformers for county |
attorney of Lyon county. 1t seems /
TO us that Raggies should |
accept such positica.-Paola Spir- |
Il.
Read . document published in |
another column under the head |
"a That Contract and then may be
il won't seem SO straBge.-Enporia
News.
The News, after publishing The
above, publishes That Contract"
made on the Sih day of March, 1871,
between the County Commissioners
of Lyon county and the then firm
OF Ruggles & Plumb.
But strange to say the News,
with that absent mindedness that is
so characteristic OF it, forgets to also
publish the iact that the Supreme
court of this State, at the July
IS1D term thereof, in the case OF
Ciough & " heat VS.. Hart ct al,
rendered decision that made ''lhat
contract bet geen the Commission
eFs OF Lyon county and Ruggies Sc
Plumb absolutely void, and that by
the rendition of that decision, Rug
giles s. Plumb could not collect one
dollar upon that contract" even
though they were to do everything
that they agre ed to do in Sthat con-
tract" ANY one DESTROYS of read
ing this decisio of the Supreme
Court (made upon just such q con-
tract,) will find it reported in the
9Th volume Of Kansas Reports, on
page 4S7.-E.nporia Ledger.
The aboye erticle in the Ledger
of Oct %, 1874, was evidently writ
ten with tho intent 10 deceive. As
will be ssen the decision against
Cough 6 Wheat was made in the
Supreme court at the July term
1871. Tho contract with Ruggles l.
Plumb was made On the Sth day o.
March 1871, being five months OF
more bsforo that Supreme court de-
eisiou. TAgtS s3esssion was pub
lished ia thesStla Is which wal
issued early in 1873, aid he syllabus
which Judge Raggles always reads
and cuts out and places in seraI
book, was published before the ST.
day os March, 1873. Yet on that
day and about one and one-hal
years after this decision agains
Clough & Wheat was made by TIL
Supreme court, Ruggles 81 Plumb
commenced this suit against the raj
road company. And again / see b,
reference to the records in til
clerks Office of the District court
that al amendment to the petition
; was fled on the Both day of Marcel
. 1874, two and one hall years afte
the decision was made. No on
supposes that Ruggles intends t
: W ork for nothing, and besides, h
: can't plead that he did not kno,
, that decision at the time even {
q filing the first part of the petition
for the Sth Kansas was then on;
and now he certainly will not plea
ignorance "a late as April 30th, 1S7.
, nor allow his organ to plead it.
c he does, and the plea ofignorance b
true, then he is not fit for Count
n Attorney and ought to be defeate'
. QUERY No Lie $500 reason:
5 bic attorneys fee for a jndgmet
e for less than $500? II it is the
: r. n. Ruggics only charged
i. reasonable attorneys fec againi
: Mrs. May for taking Judgment fc
# her against Klock and Roberts, an
G getting the matter Of her ciail
against Kline settled.
QUERY No. 2.--Is $3.50. a reason
G able attorneys fec for fling petitio
e for divorce and getting G restrainil
q order and then Diminishing the case
a Ii so then II. NJ. Ruggles on
, charged reasonable fee in case n
q 0SJ in District court for Lyo
o county. Yours for right.
is GRANGER.