Evening journal., 1891-11-11
LAST EDITION
THE MANDAMUS DROPPED.
COLONEL BENJAMIN NIELDs WITH
DRAWS The APP. IcATION.

courtman Jordan Is @uiIty of Fraad.ls
The Superior Court met In speci al ses,
sion this morning to hear the case Of the
suretiss of exOounty Collector George
w. Mckee, praying the curt to grant
msndamus compelling the Levy Court so
satisfy his official bond.
Chief Justice Comegys and Associate
Judges Houston and Cullen were upon
the bench.
The plaintiffs were represented by
Colonel Benjamin Nields, and the defend.
ants by e. q Bradford
Court Stenograpber E. @. Hardesty
oc cupied place at the clerk s desk.
Mr. Nields moved that the mandamus
be discharged. By some this is regarded
as virtual backdown on the part Of John
A Cranston and Charles NJ Groome
Others simply regard il as withdrawing
to adopt different course of action.
The Richardson Case Called Up.
In the case of the state VS.. James I.
Richardson, late collector Of taxes for
Mill Creek hundred and his sureties,
Benjamin f. Duncan, Benjamin W.
Dickey and Rebecsa Richardson, the bond
OF which collector and sureties
has been entered upon the judgment
docket of the court, Benjamin Nields.
for Benjamin F. Duncan, one of the
sureties, made motion for a rule to
show cause why the judgment should
not be opened.
Mr.. Bradford, for the Levy Court,
moved that the rule be quashed.
MIR. Duncan's Claim.
In his deposition, Mr.. Duncan said
that Richardson was in 1888 ap-
pointed collector Of Mill Creek
hundred at the February term.
for the year 1888 After his appointment
aud prior to May g. ensuing. Richard.
son repeatedly called upon the deponent
snd solicited him to become one of his
sureties
Richardson told Duncan tkat his wife.
Rebecca Richardson, had consented to
become one of the sureties. Upon condi-
tion that Benjamin w. Dickeys and Re.
becea Richardson would hscome sureties
thereupon the deponent consented.
On May 49, 1888, Richardson and Levy
Court Commissioner Howard II. Jordan
called upon Duncan and presented the
bond with warrant of attorney for his
signature. The bond had been signed
and sealed. as he was informed by James
T. Richardson, Benjamin w Dickey and
Rebeccs Richardson, and the sigma
ture of Howard 81. Jordan had
also been affixed as a witness. Believing
the signatures to be genuine he signed
the bond. and it wss delivered to Com
missioner Jordan, with full knowledge
OF the conditions upon which he had
signed.
Since the signing of the bond the de-
ponent believes that the name Of Rebecsa
Richardson appearing on the bond was
not signed by her, but that her name
was affixed thereto without her
authority, knowledge or consent That
she is the holder of property
worth xB. $780, and. that the
material part Of the property was
directly or indirectly transferred
or conveyed TO her by her husband, and
had he known that her signature was not
genuine he would not have signed the
bond as he was made to assume q diff
ferent and greater ability than he in.
tended or supposed he was assuming
when he executed the bond He
further alleges that he believes that
Levy Courtman Jordan well knew that
Rebecca Richardson had not signed the
bond and warrant of attorney nor au-
thorized any person to execute the same
for her.
evy Courtmen Present.
When the lawyers began argument at
1l3Om clock among those present in the
cour DOM sswere Levy Court Commits
sion y Buckingham, Jolls, Clark, Sut.
ton, Eliason and Hutchison and Judge
Ball
Mr.. Bradford opened for the state by
reading Duncans affidavit, the substance
of which is given above. He then said !:
''If the charges made in the affidavit
are true. then Mrs. Richardson is a mar
ried woman; Howard g. Jordan, mem.
Der of the Levy Court was guilty of
fraud; that no knowledge Is charged
directly or by mplication-guilty knowl-
edge-as against the members of the
Levy Court as a body, anywhere from
beginning to end; that Mr.. Duncan
agreed to put his name on that bond
upon condition that 1t should be executed
BY this married woman.
"This motion should be qusshed upon
two grounds First-That, assuming all
the statements Of the case to be true
the alleged forgery is no defence to his
sHreties, it rot being alleged that the
Levy Court, as such, vas party to that
fraud. That is my FIRST ground
My second ground is that it was per
fectly immaterial whether Mr. Duncan
insisted upon the execution of sthat bond
by Rebecca Richardson as q condition of
his being bound, for the reason
that Rebeoca Richardson cannot
bind herself under our married
womsn's act, as I understand it. | am
after the money that is due from Rich
ardson, and it is perfectly immaterial
to me whether il is paid by the married
woman or paid by Mr.. Duncan. But do say
that she had not power to bind herself
under our laws
He then read decision after decision
showing that alleged fraud in on sigma
.ture does not release the others who
signed the bond
he was followed by Colonel Nielda,
who followed out the lines laid down in
Duncan's affidavit
When Colonel Benjamin Nields was
asked by an EVENING JOURNAL reporter
at noon why he had withdrawn the ap
plication for a mandamus, he said
when Messrs. Cranston and Groome
filed the petition asking the court for
rule to show cause why they
should not be discharged rs sure
ties on that Judgment, the amount
for which they were liable was not then
known but it was reported to be
several thousand dollars. Since |
then an investigation shows that
McKees further liability is
a Httfa ovar ef onn and a. NnK.. q. Il