The advocate., 1891-07-29
THE ACTION AGAINST JUDGE M,KAY.

THE ACTION AGAINST JUDGE M'KAY.
The late hour at which the facts were
received at this Office relating the case
against Judge Mckay prevents any edi-
torial reference to it this week. The fol
lowing facts are kindly furnished US by
the Alliance Tribune.
The circumstances of the case are 40 fol-
lows: Albert Honeywell OWNS farm oftwo
quarter sections, 800 acres, Of fine farming
land in Harper county, ON which there is q
mortgage OF $4,000 given to secure loan
made by loan company OF which w. +.
Thayer is president and B. A. Burr resident
agent. The farm with it's crops is worth 81, 600
and it was for the purpose Of beating Honey
well out of his equity therein that the esuit was
begun. The whole proceedings have been
most disgraceful and only by the interven-
tlon of just Judge with lots of nerve the
Villainy would have been complete, and it
may be that it will yet be consumated.
The legal aspect is as follows: The note
and mortgage was transferred from the
company to the president personally, w:
+. Thayer, who thus poses ASIAN innocent
purchaser.
Suit of foreclosure was brought by Thayer
through his agent B. A. Burr against Honey
we'll, and Burr was appointed receiver by
F. G. Raney, Judge pro tenn. of the district
court of Harper county, before the RCCeS-
sion of Judge Mckay.
On June Il, 1891, after Mckay became
Judge motion was filed to vacate the re-
ceivership, based on the affirmation, frst,
that the appointment was without legal
warrant as required by paragraph 4349 Of
section 254, article 13, Civil code.
Second-That the appointee was ineligible
by paragraph 1850, same section. He being
the agent of the plaintiff and of the COM
pany of which plaintiff was president.
Third-That the appointee had exceeded
his powers in instructing his agent to drive
defendant Honeywell from the premises by
force and personal assault. Judge Mckay
sustained this motion and issued an order
of custer against receiver Burr.
On June 16, 1891, bond for stay Of pro-
ceedings was filed before Judge Horton of
supreme court, who issued an order rein
stating Burr as receiver.
On June 30, restitution bond was fled
by defendant, in district court of Harper
county, under paragraph 1856, section 555
of Civil code, which is as follows: "In an
action arising on contract for the payment
of money only, Notwithstanding the execu-
tion of the undertaking in the last section
mentioned to stay proceedings, if the de-
fendant in error give adequate security to
make restitution in case the judgement is
reversed or modified, he may, upon leave
obtained from the court below or Judge
thereof in vacation, proceed to enforce the
judgment" Et seq.
Judge Mckay sustained this motion and
ordered the execution of his former judge
ment.
On the attachment of receiver Burr under
this order, a writ of habeas corpus was ap-
piled for before the supreme court, which
application was granted and made return
able September 1, 1891, together with an
order for the receiver to re-Rssume his
duties, being nnder bond of 81, 500.
July 2l, 1891, an order was issued citing
Judge Mckay to appear before the supreme
court and show cause why he should not be
fined for contempt. Also attaching the
bodies of 0. G. Hooker, who had been sp-
pointed guardian of Honeywell, and j. ID.
Bradley who acted as attorney for Hooker.
On July %, 1891. Judge Mckay and
Messrs. Hooker and Bradley appeared. The
case was called and on motion of the court
continued till September l, 1891.
The court declined to consider the
case upon its merits. Burr was sustained
In the receivership, but subject to the
orders of Judge Mckay. We expect to
have more to say of this case next week.
Tho RnaoIutsona tAot nIoud T,ouDku Az