The Sedalia weekly bazoo. [volume] (Sedalia, Mo.) 187?-1904, 1881-01-18
The Hanker Case.

We promised our reader that We would
this morning. publish the evidence in TIL
case wherein Marker, former city collector
sues the mayor, city attorney and member
of the board of aldermen for libel, ailege;
to be in the charges preferred against hin
for the purpose of removing him from
Office in 1878, for alleged msiieassnce ans
neglect of duty.
We will fail 10 keep that promise for III,
reason that the evidence is largely o.
lengthy documents such as resolutions and
proceedings of the board Of aldermen, mes
sages from the mayor, etc. The oral testi
mouy of witnesses is not interesting.
Thus far the evidence tends simply to
show that soon after the new board came
into power, in 1873, they, by ordinance
took from Marker the Office of water com
missioner, which, prior thereto, by orsii
nance, he had held; that they did 80 be.
cause they claimed that he did not care.
fully collect the taxes and water rates and
returned some 81 800 Of the wafer rates az
uncollectable because the water Was cut
of and parties not taking it when it wss
claimed, in many instances, the parties
were still using the water and the rates
should and could have easily been collected
Also, that Marker stated that he had toe
much TO do and could not attend to the mat.
ter; and did not 60 inform the board in
time. And it Was further claimed, tina,
Marker owed the city money which he re-
fused to pay.
II seems that under . provision of the
charter the mayor first removed Marker
with the consent of TIE board, and then
complaint being made that their action
was hasty, . special meeting was called
he Vas reinststed. set Of charges
prepared against him by the mayor, city
attorney and the committee on ways and
means and copy served on Marker with
Q notes that he would be put on trial be
fore the bosrd, whereupon Marker sued
ont writ of prohibition from before Judge
Wood of the circuit court, prohibiting the
board from trying him on these charges,
because they embraced matters prior to
his then term of Office that the board then
abandoned these charges and took steps tn
get up othere, embracing matters only in
his then term, end then some
arbitration proceedings we're had.
The record of Markers settlement in
several years were introduced, as we'll a.
Ol9 O1k8OCS 0u0cs VI oCSSlCA1Cus AZ
1873; come testimony also Of conversation
had with defendants, was introduced. ALI
of which it is claimed tend to show malace
on the part of the defendants in their ac-
ton toward Marker. An evident effort is
being made to show that Mr.. Autes was the
principal one, In what his prosecution calls
. persecution of Marker. 1t seems that
when the suits of the city .gsinst Marker
were on trial before the referee, Mr.. Felix
the city attorney and the Others, especially
Mr.. Antes, were ut great inconvenience
on account of the loss OF memorandum of
dates, pages and books. which had been get
ten up showing the places where the evi.
dences of Manker's alleged indebtedness to
the city could be found.
And also because of the manner in which
the books were kept. All of which only
20 to explain Why those cases turned out
% differently from wha. many expected.
There IL great deal of skirmishing and
objectiug among the lawyers in the case.
Bat his Honor, Judge Strothe., seems to
have the whole case we'll in hand, and to
be emphatically and quietly going through
the whole matter. And il is the BAzoo's
opinion that when done his HOnor's part of
the case will be we'll done. Court ad-
journed ct p. N. yesterday, until Tuesday
At 10 .. m. ~ Judge Strother hiss to hold
court in adjourned session at Lexington on
Monday.