The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1894-05-17

The session of the United States court
Yesterday was occupied almost exclus-
. sively by the judge in rendering decisions.
Bright and early In the morning Judge
Williams entered the court room with
brisk step and after introducing saveral
friends in a manner that would almost
arouse the envy of the good Lord Chester
field. he took his seat on the bench aud
placed bundle of paper before him that
amply evidenced the fact, that so far as
work is concerned, United States judge,
who covers three judicial divisions. has no
picnic
Many gentlemen outside of the legal pro-
fession take delight in hearing Judge Will
Jams render opinions. He has ii pleasant
voice. splendid articulation and Is a
thorough master of the English language.
He has no ambition to become lannon's by
the use of technical words, but on the con-
trary be uses language clear to all. He
has the art of correctly emphasizing with
his tongue down fine, but when he wants
to make n particular impression he does 1t
with a downward punch,of bis forefnger of
bis right hand.
Tie first Case decided was that of Steele
ard Walker W.. James FL. Cride ct al.
In this case it was shown by the petition
and answer that James II. Cride as prin-
cpal, and the other defendants as
sureties, executed for the benefit of the
plaintiffs, in one OF the courts OF the
Indian Territory held at Muskogee, an
Interpleaders bond conditioned according
to the law; that upon the trial of his
fnterplea in said court judgment WAS
rendered against him and be desiring to
appeal 10 the supreme court OF the United
States from said judgment, executed in
said court an appeal bond with the de-
iendants as suretles or said bond.
He quoted the terms of the bond and
said that no supersedeas was issued or
allowed after the execution Of said bond
and the said Cride failed to prosecute his
appeal. The plaintiff filed transcript of
the judgment in the supreme court and
JbereupoD the appeal was dismissed.
Judge Williams then cited very many
authorities and ended his opinion as
follows:
But it appears that this bond was not
fled within sixty days from the rendition
Of the judgment, for 1t seems that the APP
peal was allowed Nav 18th, 1890, aud the
bond was not fled until August 31st, 1890,
and in as much as there was no suppressed
cas- allowed in this case the plaintiffs in
the case in the Territorial court could
have sued out an execution and had their
Bmedy against the maker and sureties of
the inferpleaders bond at any time. | am
therefore of the opinion that. upon the
pleadlngs il this case, the defendants are
entitled to Judgment, the finding of facts
and law being AS stated herein. Let judg-
ment be entered accordingly"
This opinion will be found of interest to
lawyers generally and particularly those
who are practicing IL the courts of the In.
dian Territory.
The second case decided was that of
Henry +. Cotton vs. w. G. Dacy ct al,
which was in favor of the plaintiff.
The last case was that of Clarence A.
Parks vs.. the board of county commits
sioners OF WyandotJe county. This suit
involved 5000, 600 and the validity Of what
IL known as the Bacon road law. Under
the terms of this law the resident real
estate owners within half a mile of the
road to be improved were authorized to
petition the county commissioners for the
performance of said improvement, where
upon il becomes their duty to appoint
three road commissioners to take charge
Of the improvement that might be prayed
for. This was done in Wyandotte county
and improvements of the value Of 5000, 600
made for which certificates were issued.
These became the property of the plaintiff.
The county failed and refused to pay for
them on the ground that the law was I'M
constitutional.
In giving his opinion, Judge Williams
ably and Interestingly discussed the ques-
ton of taxation and said that iL was che Of
the questions of greatest Importance to
the people, because through its abuse not
only homes but nations could be wrecked.
1t WAS one of the powers over which the
greatest caution should be exercised. He
held that the Legislature could not dele
gate these powers 10 road commissioners
and hence the law was unconstitutional,
and rendered IA verdict iii favor OF the
sounty commissioners.