The farmers' union. (Memphis, Mo.) 1891-1895, 1891-10-29

E(1iGOft o! NOf!t!tttSS o. ! en- COHtiiluGC.
coart, after thr pnict agreements hal
been made, asking for ABOUT the SANE
thing. and that was that the people
and our officers be pushed to Tie wall
to recover this vast S;iin uf isuilrv ..
ies; ,unl III damages personality the
prosecuting attorney waS Sian'llng ~,
in a federal! court at II. I."uis asking
/ that oar Officers be nulrhea III dam
ages for failure OF neglect Of dnty,
where the property of our citizens
vas to he i!nperilrI by the macina-
tons Of onspir:;trrs, resultant there
, from
Under tie ~uiSc Of agreement, reI;,-
! tiN" to the authority Of the executors
Of I'LL, between Hughes and Moore
, Hughes got in his order Of recover q
! judgment III eases, arni without
! Moore ; knowledge, Judging fron tie
/ the record following. Bias Tor this
agreement the death of Hill s!4,2uil
have orpcratcI as Il continuance.
I The county c,tHrt knew nothing Of
! this prefecture for Moore and Elu~IlpS.
we PIE ,Hm2, 10 keep ii from The court
and people until after N!onre'> r"-piec
/ ton had agreed that they would ete-
ter q, stipulation which WAS Gnar at
court and filed Noy. 1D,li, is.:a.. as
! fellows: 1t is hry"A> stipulated
] that no objection is or shall be taken
to the j; ca The rcinr motion for alIHs
/ ner"mp:orr mandanns in case No.
80, Hi, lodge x EricGicv. exrcr
! tors Of VIVA. HILL deceased, vs.. Scot
. land county court ct al. because the
same is n"t sworn to, hut that the
same may hc considered by the court
! with the same force. and effect us if
VERIFIED
iou can see that Hughes was will
ing to take 'ioore r.ec,linys without
vtGiiicAtlun OF our county court
/ Something ;l,>Hs.!Hl wills ATTORNEYS for
/ syn'icrt,,: vet Ii" knew that he had
bsllgc,l the dangerous places !r
agreement. OR prosecuting attri-
ley plead ;i::,t "ui.. SAIL levy was
made prior 10 loNJ. Vet the I>~J
statute Of limitation Oh back taxes
can not apply rs it wo2li impair ::
'rI'' '',' '''" - ''i'i"''lr Ia VOCATION
:" y, - '','iN''t ''''''l- HIS WIS Hi1'
Wy -: ',<''':
- q '"'i '''.@ pea vas i.';''sG ana
! '''"'''' 1"':'a ''h'' pre-. t" '!''F' '''te,
! Lex 'i' '',.'7 ''i 't''''A,'''s pea '4i 'ht
~ "a 81 ->'''' lo.'', IL "'l'eh If say:
mt }""@'n''!' IL 'iii9 c;'a5e Was rem
'''t.' more 'lf'''' yen Years before 'hia
! '"t.'''' - '',' "'',''''''"'H7 ans No
nv 'N"i Thereon '';'' "|,.h H4d rs pro
N"''' ny Sl''"' :, ana therefore tie
same Is e%iiFth ny limitation OF Lax.
! ~ >;'i!' IL" 'I'ih. III 'oi'@ at ;iis, t.;s.e
oi re'i1,t"a OF JH''-'htAt-
IKE pieai thl' tn Ia i"ce at the
tact MAT ne hai aIrt'i 70 I EeVivnr
Les a'-'il lhf+e months before ot rec
"fd AMI !! .'9n,'s discs ts:e sai'ie IN RI
g"m@hs a2aIHa, hi.L IS conclusive Of
the cas-.
/ Moore, IN his tli&s. roni;cs that 4
back tax book i not absolutely essen
tai to = s''sl s'r Delinquent take, ans'
+ with tilet lew the injunction deere"
! IN evidence was drawn III It's present
/ form, Ii told Us the injunction WAS
I to protect Ii, from railroad taxes. at
least gay" na 10 he.is'v" that was tiss.
/ H''Jrct. He tells the court ii: st. LoHi,,
that suit can be hT2'f4ne 70 collect tax
without 4 book.
| Never was there such driving i,lory
III p!eadln4s since tile vCr!d began, rs
thesc records show IN or opinion.
The court SUNS up tie pleH,';ra5
TOT Ncot!anl county hY s;eF:Ft- that
Inc ''f"furn filed - respondents,
leaves 'he facts stated III info ilnat'on
practically und!sputci.
Then Mir. Moore enters another
stipulation with hughes, etc, by
"'ic'i ser' zee Is waved and agrees tat
return viii he made thereto without
'"e'' SERVICE 'ne soiii mass OF AZ
s''!''ti' ''a,' E''e'"''''S adverse 10 our
',-'' ''''''''''' a ''''>' 'i.'''5 l''e'' ;"
.'l..,, '''''0 - '''''' '''''' VIZ
r,',' ,,,,-. .,.,,.,,,,;,>,,.,,,..,
we find Of r,ci,rI !. Lv los p \..,,;t
aud !. +. l:upl,es in their ro,rasenta-
five ,l,.r.l.,o,. 1L.,. .n,oo ,l,,t flo
amount which is t}nr ~ az cases ;s
$50 1,-0- e.r ,h;., .i;.s ,,.ro,,,.
tory wits will he issued ~ the nr,in,.
Gf the court. |, this a part of Mes
bits duty. a sworn officer and servant
Of Our i,eG,4e, to agree that the order
of the court shall 90 against us for
the sum 50 vast agreed? Done jan
uurv 6.h. 1891.
Then Mir. NesIit, for John C..
Moore. prosecuting attorney. etc. rc;s
in another agreement which saws: at
is understood that in all cases herein
wherein WIN Hill is relat.>r, the suit