The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1876-10-28

& ~ Z ~ = > q = g =:
never out Of the State except in tn,
military service, from September I86.
to June 1866, and frequently at HON,
during that period on leaveof absence
During this period Of fdsr years
was never charged by Mr.. Halliday
by Hughes & Lester, or by any hu
man being in legal proceedings, b,
written or spoken words, or in any
form OF manner with the crime Sc,
forth in the proceedings referred to
nor in connection with the transac.
tons Of Hill, Anthony & Co. with
the plaintiff in this case or with any
other customer or creditor of the
firm of Hill, Anthony & Co.
No process of the form of this one,
or of any other form was served up
on me, although l was there liable. to
such service, and where the laws
would make judgment under such
form of complaint good against the
body of the defendant. l was not
only there within easy reach of each
process, but was in Inc perfo' e
OF public duties in the SUI ::
1862 as conclusive against ceai-
ment as the position now held before
the people of Kansas.
The first intimation received by me
that Hughes & Lester held me guilty
of Misrepresentation and wrong, was
found in the complaint, now publish
ed, served upon me in Kansas in 1867.
Immediately upon such service l
went to Thomas P. Fenlon, an attor-
ney in the city of Leavenworth, and
stated to him the circumstances and
facts, substantially as herein recorded,
and said to him that this charge of
misrepresel 'tion was an afterthought
and used to force me into settle
ment at the cost of my friends. He
was informed that such form of ac-
ton would be resisted byme to the last,
and successfully, too, and to this end
he was directed to make answer to
the complaint. He was also inform
ed that suit for debt, simply, would
not be resisted, although the claim
in equity was due from Others than
me.
The commission to take the testi-
mony of Mr.. Halliday in New York
was arranged without my knowledge.
I neDer knew Of the existence Of such
or any ether eg1denee being
taken in tie case nnhH I saw it pub
Gshed in the Times.
l had supposed, and still do, that
the judgment was entered up by con-
sent, purely, and without testimony,
written or oral, as had been agreed in
4 stipulation had and made between
the attorneys for the plaintiff and my
,elf in the office of Hiram Griswold,
Esq.,, one of said attorneys.
In an interview had, as above stat
ID, l informed the attorneys, as all
parties before had been informed,
hat l had no objection to the enter
ng up of judgment for debt, but
would never consent to any admission
If the crime charged. l was inform
ID that nothing but a civil action was
and that such a judgm&h
:ould and would be entered up. Sat
SIZED with this, and being about to
cave home on official business, ! in
tructed Mr.. Griswold, in whom l
hen had and still have confidence,
o inform my attorney, Mr.. Fenlon,
# the agreement, and my wishes that
be complied with by the withdrawal
# the answer and the consent to
judgment in such form as should not
mtJ guilt Of any 1rong beyond ING
'Ay to Pay.
never saw the papers of record,
nd never doubted that they were so
losed as to shield me from the impli-
alton of crime, until they appeared {
n print for my injury at this time;
or should l ever had admitted to any
in the case which left this !;
question in doubt had l understood
possible for any just misapprehen-
ion to arise as to the character of ,
he proceedings.
In support of the foregoing state
nents, and for full protection against I
he charge of pleading the statute of
imitation, admitting the truth of the
riminal charge in the complaint of
hughes & Lester or allowing judg
lent to be rendered on the evidence Z
f Halliday, the following statement Z
f attorneys for both parties will, /
mink, be conclusive: Ii
LEAvENwoRTH, September ast'
on. Geo. 7. AsfAos>:
Dear Sir. In reply to your note Of t. stre-
iyed beg to submit the following statem,u.: Ii
The petition filed against you by Arthur Hughes =
ID Others in the District Court of this county, and
nich is signed by me, was drawn by attorney in
e state Of New York and filed by me.
Soon after the suit was commenced had an inter-
ew with you, in which you stated that you had no
tense to make to the debt and could not object to
igment for the amount due, but you denied the al
,atons Of fraud, and said you must defend against =
I'm. 1t was because of these allegations, as l I'M
rstood you. that you would employ Mr.. Fenion as !,
Ut attorney. :.
After Mr.. Fenlon had filed the answer which, be-
les denial OF the allegations Of the petition relied
on the statute Of limitation saw you again when n
stated that had no knowledge that he intend :,
to plead the statute, and that you did deny the
dlty Of the debt as q DEBT ~s<re5.
When the court met, you, myself and Mr.. Fenlon
and fhens shaa. i