The Wichita city eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1872-1883, 1876-10-26

never out Of the State except in the
service, from September 1862
to June 1865, and frequently at home
during that period on leave of absence.
During this period Of ton- years |
was never charged by Mr.. Halliday.
by Hughes & Lester, or by any hui
man being in legal proceedings, by
written or spoken words, or in any
form or manner with the crime set
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 | was there liable to
such service, and where the laws
would make a Judgment under such
form of complaint good against the
body of the defendant. ! was not
only there within easy reach of each
process, but was in the performance
of public duties in the summer Of
1862 as conclusive against conceal
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, Wa:
found in the complaint, now publish
ed, served upon me in Kansasin 1867
Immediately upon such service
went to Thomas p Fenlon, an attor
ney in the city of I.eavenworth, and
stated to him the circumstances anC
facts, substantially as herein recorded
and said to him that this charge o
Misrepresentation was an afterthough
and used to force me into a settle
ment at the cost of my friends. He
was informed that such form of &C
ton would be resisted byme to the last
and successfully, too, and to this enc
he was directed to make answer tC
the complaint. He was also inform
ed that suit for debt, simply, woult
not be resisted, although the claim
in equity was due from others thar
me.
The commission to take the testi
mony of Mr.. HALLIDAY in New Yorl
was arranged without my knowledge
meier knew Of tie existence Of sHel
testimony or any ether e71aenee bein.
taken IN tie tase until ! sao it bu6
listed in tie Times.
| had supposed, and still do, tina
the judgment was entered up by con
sent, prey, and without testimony
written or oral, as had been agreed ii
a stipulation had and made between
the attorneys for the plaintiff and my
self in the Office of Hiram Griswold
ESQ.,, one of said attorneys.
In an interview had, as above stat
ed, | informed the attorneys, as al
parties before had been informed
that | had no objection to the enter.
ing up of 4 judgment for debt, but
would never consent to any admission
of the crime charged. | was inform
ed that nothing but civil action was
desired, and that such a judgment
could and would be entered up. Sat
istied with this, and being about to
leave home on official business, | in
structed MIR. Griswold, in whom !
then had and still have confidence,
to inform my attorney, Mr.. Fenlon,
of the agreement, and my wishes that
it be complied with by the withdrawal
of the answer and the consent to
a judgment in sueh fern as shouM moi
imply gull Of any 7oyVns 6epond ina
bihty 10 Pay.
L never saw the papers of record,
and never doubted that they were so
closed as to shield me from the impli-
cation of crime, until they appeared
In print for my injury at this time /;
nor should l ever had admitted to any
termination in the case which left this
question in doubt had ] understood
it possible for any just misapprehen-
sion to arise as to the character Of
the proceedings. 80
In support of the foregoing state
ments, and for full protection against
the charge of pleading the statute of
admitting the truth of the
criminal charge in the complaint of
Hughes & Lester or allowing a judg-
ment to be rendered on the evidence
Of Halliday, the following statement
of attorneys for both parties will, |
think, be conclusive:
LEAvrNwoKrm. September 18th, 1870
len. GEO. 7. dntAony.
Dear Sir In reply to your note Of to-day just re-
,cived beg to submit the following statement:
The petition filed against you by Arthur Hughes
md others in the District Court Of this county. and
which is signed by me, was drawn by attorney in
he state Of New York and filed by me.
Soon after the suit was commenced had an inter
new with you, in which you stated tina; you had no
license to make to the debt, and could object to
Judgment for the amount due, but you denied the al
egations of fraud, and said you defend against
hem. 1t was because of these allegations, as |
erstood you, that you would employ Mr.. Fenlon as
our attorney.
After Mr. Fenlon had filed the answer, which. be-
ides denial OF the allegations of the petition relied