The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1888-07-12

II
of this and adjoining counties, with
which have been so long associated.
And you will now at least be able to
give very much more reliable informa-
tion-if it is reliable information you
desire-to your readers relative there
to by obtaining and publishing the
opinions of Judges PeytOn and Graves,
before whom have practiced law six
teen years, than by publishing the
stale and manufactured affidavitS of
one whose own attorneys say was
mistaken. Yours truly,
E. w. CUNNINGHAM.
From the Emporia Republican.
The JudgeshIp.
EDITOR RECOMMENDATIONS |
again upon your valuable space l de-
sire to present to your readers the /
facts relative to the tax deed to which /
you refer in your issue of July 9Th. |
One FarIin, citizen of ILLINOIS, en-
ployed us in 1877 to collect quite sum |
of money from a man named Ahrendt /
then living upon piece OF land owned
by him in Chase county. Ahrendt, |
who was the son-In-law of Farlln, |
had run away from Illinois with wO-
man, his niece, named Schutt, leaving |
his wife and seven children in desti- |
| tute circumstances, and his father-in- |
| law to pay security debt, it being |
| the same we were employed to collect. |
Ahrendt being discovered in Chase
county, Farlin came on as above
stated. We brought suit and attached
the land and sold the same in due
course of proceeding, sherlff's
deed therefor being made to Mr..
Farlin. In the meantime however a
deed from Ahrendt to the woman
Shut with whom he was living dated
prior to the attachment had been
| placed on record, and also deed from
ShrIff fn SOoK n IauyUar at Cottonwood
Falls. We then brought suit against
Sock to recover the land for Farlin. 1t
was bitterly contested and the jury
| found against our client. The case
was then taken TO the supreme court,
reversed and sent back for new trial.
1t was again tried and again the jury
| found against us. Again the case
went to the supreme court and was
there affirmed, thus terminating the
| struggle after nearly seven years OF
contest. About the time of the second
| trial it occurred to us that probably
during this protracted contest the
taxes were becoming delinquent and on
going to the treasurer's Office, found
that the land had been sold to the
county. we therefore took an assign
ment of the tax sale certificates to our
selves for the purpose of saving our
client, Mr.. Farlin; for if we had paid
the tax and redeemed the land he
would have lost the money so paid if
the case should be decided against him,
as it was.
We never held those certificates as
against him, nor the tax deed that was
finally issued thereon, nor ever pur-
posed to do so. We paid our money
for the certificates and had an under
standing with him that in case he
should so desire we would convey the
land to him, if we should be success
full in saving it by means OF this tax
deed. He was from first to last en-
tirely cogniZant Of and satisfied with
the manner in which this business was
conducted by us, both in regard to the
very protracted and bitter legal
contest and the condition of the tax
certificates and tax deed issued thereon
| spoken of by you. 1t then became le-
gal question as to whether the tax deed
was solid instrument as against the
one holding the land. There was no
question of honesty or fair dealing, for
Mr.. Farlin our client knew of and was
satisfied with what was done. This le-
gal question was decidedly the supreme
court against US, notwithstanding the
fact that Judge Graves, Judge Buck.
A. Gillett and others thought with us
that the deed was good.
E. W. CUNNINGHAM.
The matters as above set forth are
true. w. T. MCCARTY.
COMMENTS:
In reply to the above communication
we will merely say that the facts of
the case as presented by MI. Cunning
ham to the supreme court clearly show,
as decided by the court, that the OBJ
tanning of the tax deed was fraud
upon the client and the supreme court
so decides.
If the actual facts are as now stated
by Mt. Cunningham then two things
are evident:
1st. The case made by him in the
supreme court was false and neither
the district court dor the supreme
court were informed of the actual
facts.
I'd. The actual facts were inten-
tionalIy withheld and a fraud perp-
trated upon the courts. From tn g
logic Mr.. Cunningham cannot escape.
If we are not correct, why did Mr..
c.. in the case before the court, claim
, title under his tax deed against his
} client? Again, if the facts are as he
now states them, why did he not in
form the court that he held the tax
deed for the benefit of his client and
with his knowledge? Had he so in
formed the court-told the truth-he
would have been driven out of court.
If he is right now he deceived the court
} and perpetrated a fraud upon it. 1t
must be apparent to any intelligent
person that what Mr.. c. now. states is
at variance with what he stated to the
court. Cunningham as a candidate for
Judge conflicts with Cunningham MS
an attorney in the courts. The
fact is, he meant to gobble
up that land under that tax deed with
out regard to the original ownership
client or no client. If those who are
sometimes compelled to employ attor-
neys, uphold such crooked and treach-
erous pra. tice they need not complain
if they are sold out, occasionally. Per-
sonally we have no feeling against Mr..
Cunningham, but, knowing something
of his professional methods, we cannot
endorse them by endorsing him for
| judge, and by so doing, uphold the
same methods in others. Unless the
people ''set down" upon this scheming
practice. when they have an opportu
nifty to do so, they need never expect
to see it corrected.
The following marriage licenses
were issued by the probate judge dur
ing the past week: John
DonIey and Emma Cuckett; Law
| renee T. Boorey and Lille Swim;
Thomas r. Cupp and Emma Hummer;
Thomas SmuIIing and Ada Whitmore;
W. r. johnson and Nettie Beckwith;
Lewis Campbell and Katie Moore; Geo.
E. Hewes and Luella NJ. Hancock: Ed