Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1884-05-08

The columns Of the REaTsTER have
not ordinarially been overcrowded with
legal literature. Hut lately the law
ysrs have been Iteraily turning our
office into store-house for their huge
piles and foifos Of legal cap. and keep.
ing us busy. robbing us of sleep and
peace Of mihd, printing "digests' and
"briefs" for the supreme court, 30 that
we feel now quitefull of legal lore.
or course, most Of II is dry mo doubt
weighty enough with the wigged lords
of the supreme court, but uninterest-
ing to the lay reader.
However, in long brief which we
have just completed for Judge Emer-
son, in case between Leeper vs. Bates,
which was Appealed from Wayne coun-
ty, we find, scattered here and there
through it, some gems Of sarcastic logic
and humor, which have become char
acteristic Of the Judge Of late years.
It seems the object of the suit was to
set aside certainsdeed. upon the al.
legged ground that 8. A. Bates had paid
no consideration TOR 1t. and because
Geo. Bates and 8 "A. Bates had com.
bined and conspired to cheat Geo
Bates creditors.
The extracts are laconic and spicy
and will repay q perusal. We extract
the following:
But the plaintiffs seem to be laboring un.
der the hallucination that the deed Of Jan.
uary Cd, 1870, was q statutory assignment BY
Geo. Bates! Though no creditor ever OBJ.
jected, ever complained, ever took any steps
to disturb 1t, and all were paid, no one wrong.
ed, full value given and receiyed-yet plant.
IFS have lingering suspicion that in som.
acay, not easily explained--less easily under.
stood-that assignment" MS they term it
OF January I'd, though honestly carried out
and executed, ought to elongate itself out ovel
the eight months intervening between thai
event and the making the deed to the land
in question on August Sd, 1875, and taint and
poison it! !! J"
"Next they complain that Geo. Bates was
doing 'land-office' business; he sold, they
say, five tracts OF land IA 1873 (three of them
to strangers), for $500 years before
They offer no evidence to show them to be
else than bona fde, de,--therefore, the sale OF
the tract now in controversy to s. A. Bates
In August, 1875, was fraudulent, All, Yes
and he sold three tracts in 1S74Hone to s. A.
Bates for 500 and two to strangers for ST 400
No evidence of any unfairness, yet: THERE
FORE, his deed to s. A. Bates, of August Sd,
1S75,yas Jraudulent, fraudulent of course,
because the others were honest ~
"Don't two honest seles for Uolne, go to
prove that thssale euS august Sd % s. a.
Bascs Of the land in Controversy was eoer SO
fraudulent! Isn't it according to legal log
ic that two HONEST sales prove 4 third sale
to be FRAUDULENT! Could there be an
honest sale on, the ,a5th of February, and an
other on the 30th Of August, and yet anoth-
.er on August. Sd? No, indeed. IT proves
that the ns,ddle sale wasa fraud, because the
FtMo were proxeg,by appelIants' own
EVIDENCE to have been Hpnest!,.,,
s-s'To prove that s. A. Bates was insoIvent,
appellants introduced Geo. T. Lee who tes-
titled as follows:
met Samuel A. Bates as he came back
tom Oregon or California; he said he had
not Deensucccssful in making much money
there; l think he said he would get Home
with $50, maybe $3.50 or $3.50; it was small
amount; might be $S0D-there was an eight
to It! Marvellous, indeed! What dem
onstration OF aman's insolvency, his impe-
cuniousness, to be sure!
A gentleman of property and means (as s.
A. Bates was) takes trip to the Pacific
coast to visit friends, in search Of health,
pleasure. or fortune as the case may be. He
returns to bis home. On his way as he nears
his destination, neighbor meets him and
he relates his adventures, his experience,
and amongst other things, that he would get
home with $s0-maybe $500!
appeal to the experience of every lawyer
in this case, every Judge upon the Supreme
Bench, and ask, was any one Of them ever SO
fortunate as DR.. s. A. Bates, to make such
trip and get home with $50 to $500! Ny
experience is that always get home penni-
less, perhaps borrow fifty or u hundred dol
lars to enable me to reach home. And yet
we should, any of us, be amazed Ave years
afterwards to have witness relate that in
cident to induce court to infer our insolyen-
cy! Wemight in fact be worth tens OF thous-
ands of dollars in property and means, which
we did not carry with us to exhibit in our
travels, and yet because we did not "get
home" with our pockets stuffed with cash,
with more than $50, or $500, we are to be
held to be impecunious tramps! All hail
to the new school of logic!
We have no doubt that equally en-
extracts could be taken from
the legal eloquence displayed on the
other side of the case; but unhappily
for the readers of the REGISTER, who
love the higher literature, we have no
<.,,,,, ~ a tho;. hr;of haf.,~ -f=s