The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1874-10-23
CITY MATTERS.
Leaks in the City Treasury that Were
stopped by the ReFOrmers' Can
dIdats for County AttOr-

Leaks in the City Treasury that Were
stopped by the ReFOrmers' Can
dIdate for County AttOr-
ney.
On June &c, 1873, the famous ''pound
ordinance" was passed by the city
council. Under this ordinance Mar
shall Gilchriest took up and impounded
stock. Parties whose stock had been
taken up under the ordinance, under
the advice of r. n. Ruggles that the
ordinance was void, commenced sew
eraI actions in the district court of Ly-
on county for the recovery OF their
stock. The first case that was tried in
the district court, tO-wit, "Schmidling
VS.. Gilchriest,' was decided in favor OF
the plaintiff, and against the officers OF
the city. The district court, Judge
Watson presiding,) holding that the
ordinaucc was void. The city appealed
to the supreme court, and the decls-
ION of the district court was reversed,
and the ordinance held valid. The
case was sent back to the district
court for new trial.
There was no dispute as to the facts
In any of the cases, hut all turned up
on the validity of the ordinance. The
supreme court having decided that in
the affirmative, the city was certain TO
win the cases iu the district court.
But in the course of time, Z. N. Rug
giles was appointed city attorney, and
while such city attorney the council
passed an ordinance repeating the
pound ordinance without any sGU-
ing clause, saving the rights of the
city and officers of the city, which had
been acquired under the same, and
this, too, after submitting the question
To vote of the people.
The result OF the repeating ordnance
vas as if the original ordinance had
never been passed, and by reason of Il.
N. Rugglcs pleading the passage of the
repeating ordinance without any saw
iB,s clause, Judgment was rendered
against the city in those actions which
the city would have won were it not
for the repeating ordinance. The
costs of the actions were rs follows:
Schmidling VS.. Gilchriest,
No.G37, $3l.65
Skillman vs.. Gilchricst, 1915
Schmidling VS.. Gilchriest.
No. S6S, 1915
Criley vs.. Gilehriest, 1915
4 total of S6S.1O
which the city has to pay, and which
it was the duty of the city attorney to
have prevented by saving clause in
the repeating ordinance, he knowing
that the ordinance was to be repealed,
the question having been submitted to
4 vote of the people.
This is the professional success of
which he ought to be proud. Had he
seen that the saving clause was placed
in the ordinance, it whuld have been
no breach OF faith to his former clients,
because they should haye stood or fall |
en- upon their rights as they existed
at the time of the commencement of |
their action. But not to do SO was |
a silent breach of faith to the city, |
whose rights he was bound to protect |
under the oath of Office he had taken.
ANOTHER LEAK STOPPED.
Under the arrangements between |
the city and Mr.. Ruggles, the latter
was to charge the city a reasonable |
fee for services in the district and SUI
preme courts. IL will be remembered |
hat he prosecuted successfully, at one
term of court, six cases against F. w.
VOlmer, in the district court, for which |
he was paid fee of s25 each. The de-
PENDANT appealed to the supreme court,
and under arrangement had with eOun-
sci, all the cases were to be submitted |
under one argument, as the same ques- |
ions arise in each case. Tho cases |
were argued upon one brief, and the |
city attorney had no more labor to |
perform than if he was arguing one |
case, but when tn e city attorney pre-
;ented his bill for services in the SUI
Dreme court, instead of charging fifty |
lOllars for one case and a nominal |
charge for the other five, he charged |
fifty dollars each for the six cases, max
ng n total of $500 for services which |
ne would have rendered to an individ- |
nal for 500. Mr.. Ruggles obtained
MS city order for $500, and have not |
heard OF his commencing an action to |
enioin the city treasurer from paying |
it. He is the man who wants the peo-
pie OF Lyon county to understand that
during his term of office not dollar
will be paid from the treasury unless |
it is justly and legally due.
QUERY.-Will he enjoin the board of |
county commissioners. from turning
over to Ruggles & Plumb the s66,666.-
&C of stock in the NJ, X. & T. r. r
Co. under their contract if they should
threaten to do so. Not much.
Truth