The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1891-03-12

J 3 1Jcla That Has Been Held Under Le-
! eai Attachment FOR Eighteen Years.
"He]c, Bob. uow's The muller
"First rate"
"Still alive, and eating against the
writ?'
Eyes; the mules all right, and as
lively as when 1 first took charge of
nim."
"Well, 1 guess l had better take an
other receipt from you, Bob, to keep the
sheriffs records straight" said Under
Sheriff Long in an official talk with r.
II. Scott, who Glanced to drop into the
sheriff's Office 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:
IR Il. Scott, do hereby certify that of the two
mules that were left in my charge by Thomas
Cunningham, sheriff of San Joaquin county. in
1872 and which mules was informed belonged
to the estate of NJ. Capurro, insovent, one died in
the year 1878. The other is still, Mt this date,
alive and doing WE'LL considering age and the in
flrmites incident thereto, the said mule being
now, to my certain knowledge about 80 years
old Nevertheless 1 am still holding the said
mule subject to the orders of Thomas Cunning
ham, sheriff r. Il. SCOTT.
Stockton, Nov. Il.
The story of the mules is interesting
to show how property can be tied up in
litigation. Somewhere about 1864 M.
Capurro was a we'll to do business man
of this city, owning II fine team, which
was engaged in hauling freight to the
mountains. and II 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 III. 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 u law exempting
pair of animals for teamster, and
also set upa claim to his horse and dray,
which were the means of his livelihood.
Then commenced legal fight, and in a
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 teamster were
tied up in litigation which has never
been settled.
The sheriff then in office held the ami
mails under a writ of attachment, and
when he went out of Office in 1867 the
mules were delivered to his successor,
Freeman Mills. Two years later Sheriff
Mills gave the animals to the next sher-
if, George G. Castle, and in 1879, when
Sheriff Cunningham went into Office, the
mules were given over with the books
and records and property under attach
ment.
Sheriff Cunningham placed the mules
in the charge of r. r. 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 shcriff's keeper So per
day, which is the limit fixed by law for
the pay of keepers, the surviving mule is
charged with over SEC $3.50 costs. If the
mule is charged with ranch fees at Sc
per month the bill against the animal
struggling to outlive the courts is over
$575. Adding S14l for ranch fees. charge
able against the one that grew tired Of
the laws delay and died, would make
the bill for ranching to be collected out
of the only property remaining the lone
mule, over $725. Stockton Independent.