The state herald., 1895-05-24

Judge Robinson had the Overland MI Il
OF last weeks issue say: "Ths case Of
the county commissioners against Judge
Robinson was tremendously kicked
out Of court by Judge Armour. This is
. complete yinfioatiou Of Judge Robin
son." This is certainly q very re-
markable claim to be made by q man
who claims to DO learned in the law.
The question OF dispute between the
commissioners and Judge Robinson out
OF which the suit originated is this: The
commissioners have held that all fees
earned in the county judges Office in any
one year over aud above tho $500 salary
provided by law should be turned into
the county treasury as excess fees for
that yeur to be used to help defray the
ordinary expenses Of the county and that
this should be done no matter whether
these excess fees are collected within the
year in which they were sarned or in any
subsequent year. Judge Robinson con.
tended that, If these excess fees were
coll,cted by him in = subsequent year,
he had Alright to apply them on his SALARY
for that year and refused to pay back in
TO the county treasury, when SO ordered
by the commissioners, several hundred
dollars in fees earned III 1898 and report.
cd by him as the proceeds OF his office for
the month Of January 1891 and allowed
him under his claim for salary Of 1854
When the case WAS called for trial it was
found lhat the complaint would not ad.
nit Of the Introduction OF evidence to
prove the collection OF these excess fees
IN any year except 1898. An attemp,
was made by attorneys for the commits
sioners to amend the complaint SO as to
} ermit Of the introduction OF evidence
to prove the collection OF excess fees oi
1888 in the year 1891. This amendmen;
was strongly objected to by Judge Rob.
inson and his attorney and under the
rules Of practice the court did not give
permission for tho am sndn.euts and,
rather than 60 through with trial
which, when ended, could not possibly
settle the points IL dispute, the commis
sioners dismissed their suit withou'
prejudice 70 their right OF commencing
saoths- sst'ss .r-i.st sks .eS-sSs.i
The case was not tried and not singls
question Of the dispute between Judge
Robinson and the commissioner WAS
decided and no reasonable nan could or
would insist for n moment That the dis.
missal Of the case was . vindication OF
Judge Robinson aud no ono would make
such claim unless he wished to mlsIesd
parties who wero not acquainted with
the facts surrounding the dismissal Of
the case. Alter the case was dismissed
the commissioners aud their attorneys
proposed to Judge Robinson and his ut.
torney to begiu another action ct ono.
and, by agreement, take up aud try the
case before the adjournment Of this term
Of court, but Robinson aud his attorney
refused to do SO, showing very clearly
that they did not want 10 try the case
In such a manner Ms TO settle tho ques.
tons in dispute aud also indicating that,
in their opinion, the dismissal OF the
case was not complete vindication Of
Judge Robinson" We should not have
commented on this matter had it not
bson for the false uad misleading repre-
seniation made iu the Nail article.
Misrepresentation may deceive the PEG.
pie for short time. but they generally
discover the facts sooner or later.