The advocate., 1891-08-05

| AAoAAO Va OAC OcoO OAO ONAlOOA Va l. M
ADVOCATE sought an interview with
Judge Valentine, associate justice Of
the supreme court, (Judge Horton be-
ing out of town. We were received
by the judge very courteously and
he kindly consented to the use Of his
name in connection with the follow
ing statement, which was taken down
Uerbatim ct iteratim in his own Ian
gusge. A perussl of this statement
will show how much foundation there
is for the sensational and intensely
partisan reports that have gone to
the country through the old party
press. Judge Valentines statement
is as follows:
Three different proceedings have been inSti-
tuted In the supreme court and are now pending
therein, all growing out Of an action instituted
In the district court Of Harper county for the
foreclosure of mortgage. The first of such
proceedings is petition in error filed In the su-
preme court to reverse an order made by the
Judge of the district court Of Harper county,
George W. Mckay, at Chambers, dlscharging a
receiver, previously appointed by that court, and
placing the property held by the receiver In the
hands Of the defendants guardian, the defend
ant being Albert Honeywell and the guardian
hot fha tn
was filed In the supreme court, Chief Justice
Horton, under section 66S Of the civil code, and
In accordance with the practice In such court
from the beginning, granted an order staying all
the proceedings In the district court connected
with the discharge OF the receiver, and ordering
that the property should remain III the hands of
the receiver upon the condition that he should
give a good and sufficient bond in the amount Of
81 800, which he did. This case on petition In
error has not yet been heard, and no expression
Of opinion has yet been given by the supreme
court or by any member thereof, whether the
action of Judge Mckay In discharging the re-
celver was correct or incorrect. Afterward
Judge Mckay ordered that the property should
be delivered by the receiver to the defendants
guardian upon the guardians giving bond in
the sum Of $500, which he did; but the receiver
refused to deliver the property to the guardian
and Judge Mckay then found that the receiver
was guilty of contempt and fined and imprisoned
him. The receiver Immediately made appllca-
ton to Associate Justice Valentine Of the su-
preme court for a writ Of hGbeGs corpus, which
was granted, and the hearing Of the same upon
It's merits was set for September, 1891; and in
the meantime It was ordered that the receiver
should be released from custody upon his giving
good and sufficient bond In the sum Of 81 500,
which he did. Nothing has, as yet, been decided
by the supreme court, or by any justice thereof,
In this case Of hGbeds corpus. Afterward third
proceeding was instituted In the supreme court
to require the Judge Of the district court and the
guardian, and j. d. Bradley, who acted as cOun-
sci for the guardian, to answer why they should
not be prosecuted and punished for contempt In
violating the order Of the chief justice Of the SUI
preme court. The parties all appeared and an
nOunced that there was no intention on their
part to violate any order of the supreme court,
or Of any judge thereof. but that the aforesaid
order Of Judge Mckay requiring that the prop
erty In the hands Of the receiver should be de-
livered to the guardian upon the execution by
the guardian Of q bond In the sum Of $500 was
made under their Interpretation Of section 555 OF
the civil code; and that the amount Of the bond
was fixed at only S9OO-less than One-fOurth OF
the movable property in the hands Of the re-
celver--fOr the reason that the guardian had al
ready given a sufficient guardians bond. The
supreme court Immediately informed the parties
and decided that section $50 of the civil code has
no application to such q case; that under it a
district Judge or district court has no power to
the supreme court or any judge thereof. Moth.
ing further was decided in the case; but the
hearing thereof was continued and set for Sep