Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1887-1895, 1890-12-27
HELD THE MULE.
A Legal Attachment which Lasted Eieh
cen Years.

LeeaA Attachment Which lasted Eight
cen Years.
Hello, Bob, how's the muller"
"First rate"
"Still alive and eating against tho
writ?''
eyes, the mules all right, and as live
~ as when first took charge of him.
well, guess had better take an
other receipt from you, Bob, to keep the
sherifts records straight" said Under
Sheriff Long, in an official talk with R.
I. Scott, who CHANGED to drop into the
sheriffs Office recently to report that he
was alive and that he still recognizes
the red tape which is attached to an old
mule. Mr.. Scott signed the following
paper:
], r. 7. Scott, do hereby certify that of the
two mules that were left in my charge by
Thomas Cunningham, sheriff Of San Joaquin
County, in 1879, and which mules was In
formed belonged to the estate Of NJ. Capurro
insolvent, one died in the year 1873 The other
is still, at this date, alive and doing we'll, con-
sidering age and the infrmities incident there
to, the said mule being now to my certain
knowledge, about thirty years old; neverthe-
less am still holding the said mule subject to
the orders O. Thomas Cunningham, sheriff
STOCKTON, Nov. IA, 1880. R. T. SCOTT.
The story of the mules, says the Stock
ton Independent, is interesting to show
how property can be tied up in ntiga-
ton. Somewhere about 1864 NJ. Capurro
was we11-to-do business man Of this
city, owning fine team, which was en-.
gagged in hauling freight to the mount
aims, and horse and dray, which the
owner used about the city. Hard luck
came upon the pioneer, however, and
along in 1866, when G. G. Rynerson was
sheriff, an attachment was issued
against Mr.. Capurro's property, and the
mule team and horse and dray were
taken in charge by the officer.
The owner claimed pair of mules as
exempt property under law exempting
pair of animals for a teamster, and
also set up a claim to his horse and dray,
which were the means of his livelihood.
Then commenced legal fight, and in
little while the Stockton man was forced
into insolvency under the United States
laws. He finally won in his fight for
the horse and dray, but the pair of mules
claimed as exempt for q teamster were
tied up in litigation, which has never
been settled.
The sheriff then in Office held the ami
mails under writ Of attachment, and
when he went out of Office in 1867 tho
mules were delivered to his successor,
Freeman Mills. Two years later Sher-
if Mills gave the animals to the next
sheriff, George @. Castle, and in 1872,
when Sheriff Cunningham went into
office. the mules were given over with
the books and records and property I'M
der attachment.
Sheriff Cunningham placed the mules
in the charge of R. T. Scott, as the sher-
IFS, and he kept the animals together
until one died in 1878. The other ami
NAL is fat and healthy, and promises to
live to the end of the century, but not to
the close of the litigation.
Allowing the sheriff's keeper three
dollars per day, which is the limit fixed
by law for the pay of keepers, the sur
viving mule is charged with twenty-six
thousand two hundred and eighty dollars
costs. If the mule is charged with
ranch fees at two dollars per month the
bill against the animal struggling to
outlive the courts is five hundred and
seventy-six dollars. Adding one hun
dred and forty-four for ranch fees,
chargeable against the one that grew
tired of the laws delay and died, would
make the bill for ranching to be col
lected out Of the only property remain
ing, the lone mule, seven hundred and
twenty dollars.