The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1879-09-25
TAYLOR vs.. THE COUNTY.
The suit OF the County Attorney
Against the County for Certain
Fees Decided Against Him-The
Grounds Of the Decision.

In District Court yesterday the suit Of Hon
]. w. Taylor, County Attorney, against the
County OF .Leavenworth, came up for hearing
before Judge Crozier. The action was brought
to recover certain fees amounting TO about
300 for prosecuting certain criminal cases
from this county IN the Supreme Court.
The following jury was impanelled: F. NJ
Sparks, +. NJ. Gable, James Henderson, II T.
Roach, W. W. Wise, J. X. Hammer d, NJ. j.
Curran, James IL. Foster, William Merrill,
W. L. Eggleston, John {. Tarr and John n.
Abernathy.
Mr.. S;iliings, counsel for the county, object
ed to any testimony on behalf OF plaintiff,
on The ground that the County Board had no
power TO employ the County Attorney, or
any other attorney, TO appear for the State
in the Supreme Court. This objection was
sustained by the Court for the reason that
the county had no interest in such case, and
that the statute required the Attorney Gene
raj to represent the State In ali such eases IN
the Supreme Court.
Mr.. Stillings ohjec'ed to oral testimony
showing that the County Beard employee
Mr.. Taylor to represent the county in the
Supreme Court in cases where the county is
a party. The Court decided that the County
Board could not act except at a meeting
that TIE proceedings of al meetings must be
recorded by the county Clerk and that the
only admissible evidence of the action OF
the Board WAS such record. 1t could be
proved by parol testimony. As there was
no such record, and no employment could be
proved, the plaintiff could not maintain his
action.
Thereuppn the Jury found, in accordance
with these rulings, q verdict for the defend
ant, and plaintiff gave notice of n 5 intention
To tiie "A biiI of exceptions.
In the opinion If the attorneys generally,
this Is good criterion TO judge of the way
iheslit against the county Tor over g., coo In
fees, brought by Taylor Tor services rendered
in the bond matters, will DE decided.
ANOTHER COUNTY CASE.
II will be remembered that THE TINES gave
the history OF an appeal case from Justice
Plowman, In which lnsley, Shire & Co sued
tain claim they had held against said county.
The County Attor ley had permitted Judgment
To be taken In said Justices couri against the
county 10y default The County Auditor, W no
had Refused 10 audit the bill for the judg.
ment, which was the reason suit was brought,
insisted upon Mr.. Taylor taking an appeal,
but that gentleman failed TO do SO, aDd upon
the day of the expiration OF the legal period
In which the appeal could be filed, Mr.. Weed,
the Auditor, appealed himself, employ ing
Mr.. Baker as his counsel 10 repre-
represented Insley, Shire & c, wanted the
appeal record in the District Court stricken
ouJ, which Mr. Taylor also asked, claiming
thst the appeal WAS not an appea, the
County Attorney was the proper person 10
manage the couniy's business, and no other
JudIe CroZier decided that the appeal was
not regular or lawful and consequently no
hearing could be had upon II in 'he District
Court.
This latter suit involved In the neigbor
hood of $50.