Crawford avalanche. (Grayling, Mich.) 1879-19??, 1893-03-23

Enthusiastically eirclisated thfOughout
this Judicial Circuit that certain tax
cases petsding In IoscJ kounty. are be-
Ing held back from trial for the avo~ed
purpose OF having theiil tried briofe
me In caSg am elected Judge; aisd
the statemtnt is made that this il be-
ing done because will favor theparties
who are cSntesting their tales, and, as
Judge decide the cases in their favor.
This declaration is false and shows
upon ITS face that It could have been
originsted only by some one who was
in position to know that it is false.
The facts are these:
About two years ago three eases were
Begun against the Village Of Oscoda TO
recover taxes paid under protest.
Ohe of these cases was brought
by the Gratwick, Smith s. Fryer Lurn-
Der Company, one by Pack, Woods
81 Company and one by the Loud
Lumber Company; afpeared In the
last case as attorney for the Loud
Lumber Company; PaEk, Woods q
Compsny and the Grat&ick, Smith &
Fryer ium Der Company appeared by
other attorneys. The Gratwick case
was the first one brought TO trial, and
it was decided III favor OF the village.
after the trial Of the Gtatwick case,
although no written agreement was
made to that effect, sort of tacit IN
Outstanding was arrived htamoDg al
the lawyers, that tie other two cases
should be permitted to stand untrieo
and abide the result of the Gratwick
case, which was APPEALED to the Su
preme Court. Thesh three eases al
depend upon the saihe law AID upof
the same state of facts; aud all brough'
for the same years tax; and are.tu
based upon the claim that the property
was subjset to All unjust valuation
The Jury In the Grat%ick case saiC
that this was not true. For the ptr
pose of Saving expeose both to the VII
lage and all parties; a tacit asreemen
was arrived at to permit the othe
cases TO stand and abide the result o
the Gratwick case, and that j
what is being done now. 1t wonl'
certainly be very inwise to put tn
village to the extra expense of havin
three trisis of three different cases
when the trial OF one case can be hse
to settle and end THEM ali. IL tn
Gratwick case is affirlIied in the ST
preme Court, the understanding
that the other two cages will be will
drawn, as attn informed. If tn
Gratwick case should be reversed an
the tax held illegal By the Supren
Court, the probability is that the oth'
two cases would tlieh be settled witt
, out trial; so. in eitlief event, the hol
ing back of the Glitter two cases is
matter of economy and good sense c
both sides. They are not being he
3 back for the purpose OF having the
tried or not tried by any particul
D Judge; nor are they being held bal
BECAUSE of any Dissatisfaction wi
the tulings or the Judge who tried G
Grstwick case,
Another COMPLETE answer to IL
: whole miserable story, IS tlsat If | Ia
z pen to be elected Judge. the fact tn
acted as cottnsel i'm the Loud ca'
z would diaquallfy he from sitting
Judge at the trial of that case; a
THE fact that tile other two cases
70 pe,,d upon the Same LAW and the sa
z state of facts; would disqualify
q equally FROM sitting In those cas-
d This must certainly Have beet kno
l6 to the parties, who knew enough abe
IS the cases to originate the above sto
% and must therefore Have put them
" positioR Where they knew their sta
: ment w,is false when they started II
i5 la circulation.
The above explanation will APP
% with equal force 10 any claim q
I'm shall be made that any cases tia
50 tnavp been Interested in are being u
back to be tried before Inc, in case
my election; Yours truly,
40 M C0NNINE
- - i.A A.. NJ 4 Rgtt 10Th