The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1891-02-04

such report, and had repeatedly failed
and refused to do so when called on?
On the 18th of December, 1870, John C.
Robinson, prosecuting attorney for Put
nam county, instituted, on information in
the Putnam circuit court, quo warranto
proceedings against the company TO arrest
its charter. Change of venue was taken
by the company to Owen county, and 1t is
now known as the Owen county case.
This suit was brought in accordance with
the opinion OF AttOrney-General William
son, Judge Claypool, w. r. Harrison and
: other eminent attorneys that this was the
one vulnerable point at which the state
| could successfully attack the company.
| Many vic atiOns of the charter were al
/ legged and all for the purpose of cheating
/ and defrauding the state. 1t is not neces-
sary TO enumerate them here.
/ Messrs. Claypool and w. r. Harrison
! were employed by Governor Hendricks to
assist Mr.. Robinson in the case. Now
watch the ou come. for it is as interesting
/ as a romance. The pertinacity with
/ which the company fought this case, the
money it expended and the fraud, bri-
/ hery and chicanery 1t resorted 10 demon
/ strated that Williamson, C.aypool, ct al.
were right and that this was the heel OF
/ Achilles.
l. In the general assembly, in the
session OF 1878, on the 5th of March, the
/ senate had under consideration:
A bill supplemental to an act entitled "An
act to provide for the election, fixing the COM
pensation and prescribing the duties OF attorney
general of the state OF Indiana" Journal Of
senate, page 500. March 3, 1901
One Victory For the State.
To this a senator from Vigo offered the
following innocent looking amendment:
Prouided, That the attorney general shall not
prosecute, or assist in prosecuting any iniorma-
tion in the nature of quo warranto. against
I any corporation where the main purpose Is the
/ collection OF debt or claim until judgment
shall have been first obtained against said cor
pOraton, and said corporation STALL fall, or re-
/ fuse 10 pay or stay the same for period OF one
year, unless there is, after judgment danger of
I lOsng such debt by the insolvency OF said com
] pany or corporation. PrOUided. further, That
no dismissal of any such proceedings shall in
any manner prejudice the rights oil the state
/ if any are now pending. SENATE journal, page
! S9l, March 5, 1881
Probably not FIVE senators knew of the
| pendency OF the Owen county case, the
vast interests involved or the opinion OF
/ the attorneys in regard to the only means
| OF obtaining justice. And il seemed the
/ amendment would 90 through. Fortu-
nGtely Senator Glessner of Shelby, men,
/ Der OF the present house. did know some
/ thing about the case and explained it to
/ the senate, when, upon motion OF Senator
| S.ater OF Johnson, the amendment was
! laid on the table. This is the first and
! only defeat the company has ever met In
its contest with the state.
2 May rs. 1873, Acknowledgement Bus
| kirk Fl ed in the Marion superior court the
complaint for an accounting and for money
| due, already quoted from.
AttOrney-General Denny, Just before
| he retired from Office, made a contract
| with the attorneys of the company that If
/ the superior court dec ded against the
/ state in the Marion county case then the
! Owen county case should be dismissed.
| What the reasons were which actuated
MIR. Denny in making this con-
tract will, of course, never be known.
Even ii he was confident, as he claimed,
10 be, that the Marion county suit was
based on the proper grounds OF complaint,
yet he had no legal or moral right TO thus
attempt 10 bind his successor, and his
| eminent associates, oil of whom differed
with him and believed that the rights OF
the state could only be maintained by the
proceedings in quo warranto involved IN
/ the Owen county case.
Mr.. Denny's successor, with his associ-
ates, Messrs. Claypool and W. r. Har-
rison, repudiated this contract, and both
cases came to trial: First, the Owen
| county case, before Judge Hester at
Spencer. The attorneys for the state
were confident of winning this, but they
had yet to learn how much
money the railroad company was
willing to spend t. prevent a fair trial or
an equitable verdict, The first move the
company made was TO bribe and at night
run off one OF the states most important
v-ifn nd Ia hp
not be found. Under these circumstances
the trial began and so ended. 1t went to
the jury in the afternoon of a hot August
day in 1871. The jury stood eleven for
the state and one for the company. THE
SENlINEL does not impugn the motives of
that one man who hung the jury; but for
all practical purposes one man
was just as good fer the company as
eleven-provided he was reliable. But
the company evidently doubted his pluck
or nerve, for the JUICE got up the next
morning and dismissed the jury at 4
o'clock. without the consent or knowledge
of the attorneys for the state, and two or
three hours before they were awake.
Bribery, perjury and dozen violations of
the charter were proven, but what was all
that worth when there was one man to
hang the jury, and Judge who had the
nerve to discharge the jury at 4 o'clock
a. IN. without the knowledge OF counsel?
The Company On Top Again
Meantime the Marion county case came
to trial. was decided in the superior court
against the state, was appealed to the gen.
eral term, which affirmed the finding of
the court below. 1t was then appealed to
the supreme court on errors in the pro-
ceedings. The attorney general attended
to the filing of the papers in the supreme
court, but entirely omitted an abstract of
errors claimed and upon which the appeal
was based, as is shown by the following:
State of Indiana ex rel, Attorney. General
vs.. Terre Hsute & Indianapolis railroad COM
pany.
Terre Hauts & indianapolis railroad COM
pany had judgment in the Marion superior
court on demurrer. Affirmed at general term.
State appeals to supreme court on error. but
fails to file an abstract of entry docket and as
signment Of errors. (64 Ind. p. 297)
The court affirmed the Ndecision without
anything before it. and without notifying
the attorneys for the state or giving them
any opportunity to correct the papers.
Messrs. Claypool and w. II. Harrison filed
with the court memorial stating that
one OF the rules OF the supreme court pro-
vided that no case could be dismissed for
error in the papers without giving the
parties an opportunity to correct the er-