Wichita eagle., 1888-02-22
The COUNTS
DISTRICT oouEr.

DISTRICT COURT.
The ease Of \. 4. Earring vs. Kansas
Midland Railroad company was resumed
Yesterday morning before Judge Martin
The jury was taken out to view the prem
ises in controversy, sw or sec. 81, p, west,
situated near Valley Center.
POLICE COURT.
BAlsiness was dull in the police court.
But one case came up before his honor,
Henry Ellsworth charged with being a
whisky vagrant Henry, however, claimed
| that he was innocent and asked for trial.
which will be given this afternoon.
JUSTICE COURT.
State W. W. (. Gates came up yesterday
before Judge Walker. Neither Louie
Loenthal nor John Simpson. the former \
co-defendant, the latter an important wit
ness, were in court at the time. Several
witnesses We're examined, and the old
gentleman was bound over in the sum of
$3.50 to answer at the mex; term of the
district court the charges preferred against
him.
Joseph Sexton was also brought into
court 10 answer to the charge of assault
and battery He was accused of assault
ing one James H. Centre; and pleading
guilty to the charge paid a fine of 81 and
costs,
Mike Cunningham, a jointist who had
the day before paid his fine at the police
court for vagrancy. came into court with
Constable Cone and gave bond OF 500 for
his appearance tomorrow
MR. LAIRD's CASE.
Yesterday the case of State VS.. Il. X.
Laird, which has of late attracted con-
iderable attention, terminated in the com
plete yindication OF the defendant. Mr..
Laird, a representative of Blumenthal,
Bros. & CO., New York, was arrested few
days ago upon warrant sworn out by one
w. ID. Curtis an employee of j. V. Farwell
& Co., Chicago. He was charged in the
complaint with perjury, the prosecuting
witness alleging that the defendant in
making out an affidavit of attachment
swore that w. j. Wilson g. Co. were
about Ito convert their property into
money for the purpose Of placing il beyond
the reach of the creditors; that they have
property and rights which they conceal,
and also that they have removed their
property TO defraud said defendants.
This affidavit, together with Others,
OF similar character formed the basis of
the action.
The trial commenced the preceding day
at Judge Walkers with the examination
of w. J. Wilson who gave an account of
the transactions of the firm from its CON
ception TO its being closed by Farwell a.
Co. He was followed by George Chemusero
and G.. Wilson, both of whom said they
were not members of the firm, but expect
ed to be after February l.
The first witness yesterday was Mr.. Fox,
who stated after considerable urging that
according to his recollection the open ac-
count with Farwell was not over $40 900.
A witness afterwards, however, testified To
an old series of notes given in 1888 or 80
which swelled the amount to that claimed
in their mortgage. The mortgages were
given to Farwell and to the Kansas State
bank both at the same time, shortly before
he closing of the house.
Mr.. Adams was also placed upon the
stand. He said he was informed by Mr.
Wilson that the stock would invoice
$4,000, and that if his eastern creditors
would hold off there might be something
else for others, From Mr.. Wilson it was
learned that the whole amount of indebt-
W EASTERN was S--',utD-
The trial became quite means for other
attorneys having claims against w. J.
Wilson * Co, to get the information they
required in the prosecution of their claims
and during the time of the hearing lawyers
were present and took notes with this
object in view.
The argument was opened in very neat
and concise speech by Mr.. Moore. He was
followed by Mr.. Campbell. who took occa-
sion TO severely denounce Mr.. Wilson and
the means employed by him in the con
Quoting of his business; neither did he for
get Mr.. Chemusero, nor Mr.. Curtis. Judge
Walker, as soon as the argument WAS
finished, said that if Mr. Laid was to be
held for perjury, every man who makes
out an affidavit for an attachment should
also be held 10 answer for the same
offense; and furthermore, that there being
absolutely no grounds for holding the de-
PENDANT, he was dismissed from Gus
tody. The costs were thus taxed upon the
prosecuting witness, and nothing further
gained than an exposition OF the state OF
the firms business for the benefit of their
creditors.