The Sedalia weekly bazoo. [volume] (Sedalia, Mo.) 187?-1904, 1878-01-01
THE RoBBHR REWARD.
Apportioned Among the Claimants
-Dsclsion and Rulings Of the
Judges-The Captors Of the
YonnGer's Disgusted.

following relative to the reward for tn
capture Of the noted outlaws, the Younge
boys, who ended their criminal career j
Minnesota, after the affair at Mortified
Bank:
"Judge ID. A. Dickinson, OF this distric
and Judge VIM. Mitchell, OF the winon
district, to whom was referred the Difficult
mission 81 apportioning the $1,000 rewar,
offered by the First National Bank O
Mortified for the capture Of the outlaw
who murdered the cashier and attempted I
rob that bank in September of last yea,
have reached conclusion.
A suit was first instituted against tn
bank in behalf of the illustrious seven VIII
went into the brush, but the bank acknowl
edged the claim and paid the reward, $1,000
to the clef& of the district court OF Tic
county to await the decision OF the Judge
BY whom the award was to be apportioned
An action was then commenced in which
Messrs. Glispin, VOught, Bradford, Pome
roy, Rice, Severson. Of the captors, and Oh,
Suborn. the lad who brought the news o.
the presence Of the robbers to Madelia, wer,
plaintiffs, and some fifty odd other claim.
ants were defendants. Capt. Murphy, ont
Of the band who went into the brush. joinet
his fortunes with the defendants.
After giving history of the pursuit ant
capture OF the robbers, as developed on the
trial the judges say:
The following named defendants took
part with the plaintiffs in efis cting the cap.
ture, most Of them being assigned to some
specific place or duly BY those who were
most instrumental in perfecting an organ
lied and concerted plan Of operation. Some,
however, were not assigned to any place OF
duty, but Of their own accord undertook
and performed such duty as properly fell to
them in carrying out the common purport
Most of them were in the picket line. Some
were holding the horses Of those who were
in the picket line or in the skirmish line
in the brush:
Then follows the names Of nearly forty
who were adjudged to be entitled to a share
Of the reward.
The defendant, VIM. Shannon refused to
perform the part assigned him in the plan
Of the capture; neither he nor defendants
Robt. Shannon, w. H. cortland, ]. T. Be-
near, VIM. Donnelly, Ole Gilbertson, or
Daniel Rutledee appear a. witnesses in
their behalf, and although the evidence
shows that they each took some part in the
pursuit or were present at the place Of cap
ture shortly after the capture was affected,
the court is not able to find that their
efforts contributed to the capture or that
they were present when the capture was
affected.
OF the persons, plaintiffs and defendants,
who assisted in eHecting the capture, all
except A. Anderson, J. E. Smith and G. W.
Green, knew OF the offer of reward made by
said bank, and all such as knew OF such
offer, excepting John DOolittle, accepted
such offer By acting upon il anil taking
part in such capture. The part enacted BY
John Doolittle was performed without any
reference to such offer. Anderson, Smith
and Green did not know of the offer made
by the bank prior to the capture.
As principles of Law applicable to this
particular case, the court holds:
That the right of each individual to
share in the offered reward or to recover in
this action any portion Of the same rests
upon principles Of contract namely, an offer
held out BY one party (the bank with the
purpose that il shall be accepted and acted
upon by any other person, and an &C.
ceptance Of such offer BY another, having
knowledge Of the offer, BY doing the thing
for which the reward was offered.
That one who voluntarily did the very
thing referred to in the offer, but without
any knowledge on his part Of the existence
Of such offer, cannot recover any portion Of
the reward offered. for the reason that there
can be in such case no acceptance. An essen
tial element to constitute contract between
the parties is wanting, no privity is estab-
lished between the party holding forth the
offer and the party performing :he act.
That, in such case as the present one,
Nhere IN offer d made and Published with
obvious purpose that any person or per-
sons, without formal acceptance and with
cut notice to the bank shall perform the
prescribed act as the only condition to re-
ceive the reward, it will be presumed that
any person performing such act with
knowledge Of the offer did, in relying upon
the offer, and hence that he accepted the
offer and became party to a contract to
the benefits of which he is entitled.
When, however, it afirmatively appears
that such person acted entirely without
reference to the offer not intending on bis
part to avail himself of the offer Of reward,
such facts will requit the presumption Of
acceptance.
That the mere fact that one engaged in
the capture without being induced thereto
solely BY such offer should not exclude
him from participating in the offered re.
ward nor should the mere fact that such
an one would have engaged in the same
duty had no reward been offered, excluding
him from sharing in il.
That the several persons, plaintiffs and
defendants, who took part in the capture
having, A. We find the facts to be, actet
jointly in concert and with common pur
pose, they must share equally in the re
ward which was offered for the capture
However more meritorious or important
may have been the part enacted BY some
than that performed BY others, the court
cannot discriminate between them. Nc
other rule Of division can be applied thar
that which II most commonly illus