The Eaton Democrat. (Eaton, Ohio) 1875-1903, 1886-05-06
For the Democrat.
The New Paris Case.

In last weeks issue of the New Paris Mr.
r0F was the following:
."P. McGrew and Henry Miller, two of the
bondsmen for A. Noggle, assignee of Scott's
Trade PALACE, filed a petition last week to be
released from the bond. The case was heard
by the Probate court Tuesday, and a new bond
was ordered, not as it is claimed, on the
grounds alleged in the petition, but for the
reason that DIR. Haynie, the other bondsman,
has removed from the county"
p. McGrew and Henry Miller did not file a
petition to be released from A. Noggle's bond
as assignee of SCOTS Trade Palace. We are
not aware that SCOTS Trade Palace ever made
an assignment to A.. Noggle or any one else,
or that a name given to a place of business
can make an assignment. McGrew and Miller
did file complaint alleging incompetency. &C.,
against A. Noggle, assignee of l.. F. Scott,
asking 10 be relieved from further liability on
his bond as such assignee. The case was
heard at the time and place stated in the Mir
fOr, and evidence adduced fully sustaining the
charges. DR.. Haynie's name or the fact of
his removal from the county, was not referred
to by any one during the progress of the trial
of the case. We assert without fear of con-
tradiction from any intelligent source, that
the removal of DR.. Haynie, one of the bonds
men, did not in any way afford grounds for re-
leasing him and the other %sureties from their
bond. If it were true that a mere removal of
one of several bondsmen from the county
NuOIt N pOHu was SlNeuyl IL SOOu dlu Ndllu
grounds for canceling their obligation in cases
of great hazard and imminent danger, how
easily would it be for one of their number to
change his residence to another county, and
thereby relieve himself and co-sureties from
further risk or liability on their bond. 1t is
not necessary to have a knowledge of law, but
a bare modicum of common sense, to enable
anyone to clearly see that such a plea is alb
surd and wholly groundless. 1t would not
as much as even furnish a pretext for the
court to demand additional security of the as
signee, much less would it be cause for re-
leasing himand his COSMETICS.
So long as DR.. Haynie's financial condition
remains unchanged, no matter to what County
of the State he may have gone to, the securi-
ty 10 the creditors and all %sureties on the bond
remains the same, unchanged, and as good as
though he had never left the county. The
mere fact of his removal from the county did
not absolve him from any obligation that may
have existed prior to his going, or that may
accrue by reason of any obligation that he
may have entered into before that time. Had
he. not been released from the bond by the
court, and should it become necessary to bring
suit on the same. Would not DR.. Haynie be
made party (defendant) to the suit, and judg.
ment taken against him as well as the Other
sureties, and his property, real and personal
be reached by execution just as easily as thai
of the resident sureties? But we will admit
for the purpose of the argument that his re-
llOt dl iIOui Ii COuHl1 was SIOuuuS vi re
leasing the s~ureties, and for this reason were
released. Then we would ask by what spe.
cies of judicial legerdemain did the court take
cognizance of the case? 1t could have beer
in no way other than that provided by the
statute, which is by one or more of the bonds
men filing written complaint with the Probate
Court, in which the grounds of complaint mus
be stated and notice of the same given to tn,
assignee, and proof must be given to the sat
isfaction of the court of the correctness of til,
charge or complaint. No such complaint wa.
ever filed, no notice of such complaint, an(
the day and time for the hearing of the sam,
was never served on the assignee, or testimo
ny given to the court showing or tending t.
show that DIR. Haynie had removed from til,
county. The court could not consider ground:
for releasing sureties (although gOod) which
had not been complained of, notice of th,
same never having been given, and no proc
given to stablish the fact. To do so woul,
be an assumption of power unwarranted b,
law, precedent or sound policy. If done il
the exercise of what the court supposed cam
within the scope of its discretionary powers
it certainly did that which involves far NOR
doubt than that of permitting an assignee t,
give a new bond without complaint havin!
been filed.
To have made a record on grounds othe
than those complained of for releasing tn,
bondsmen could only have had one purpose
and that to save the assignee from a record q
incOmpetency, which would have been dir,
ping several fathoms below the level of
corrupt Congressional whitewashing commit
tee, Il thing which we believe Judge Quinn in
capable of doing. No man perhaps has sery
ed as Probate Judge in Preble county VIII
was more conscientious and careful in the dis
charge of the duties of the office than he ha
been.
Should any more items of a like characte
appear in the Mirror or elsewhere. we nro
pose giving the testimony and let the publ
Judge as to whether it does not prove tha
which is more damaging than a record of in
competency. b.