The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1895-02-14


The committee appointed by Judge
Reed to investigate charges against
attorneys for collecting court costs and
failing to turn them over 10 the proper
authorities is liable TO have some work
to do whether it desires to do so or not.
For several days after the appoint
ment of Mr.. Stanley's committee there
was a calm and some Of the ex-county
officials intimated that nothing would
be done but the storm broke out afresh
yesterday.
1t came UP over reaSsignment OF
cases, In going over the docket il
transpired that a large number of cases
had been settled and disposed of and
that no journal entries had been made.
The clerk of the court called attention
of some of the attorneys to the fact
that the costs in many of these cases
had not been paid and this precipitated
small sized cyclone.
Some of the attorneys intimated that
here was work for MIR. StanIey's COM
mittee and tended more to aggravate
than to allay the trouble and caused
Judge Reed to takes a hand and he
if the business of his court was not run
regular that he would find out the rea-
son why.
1t has been known for some time in
fact ever since the Boone case came no
that Judge Reed has been more or less
worried over the charges that have
been flying around the court house
and it is supposed that the proceedings
yesterday will tend to nerve Mr.. STAN
ley'S committee to a thorough inveSti-
cation.
Mr.. Stanley said yesterday that his
committee had organized and that they
would hold meeting on the 22d of this
month and would then get down to
business and find out what foundation
there was for some of these reports.
He intimated very strongly that this
thing had got TO a point where justice
demanded full and fair investigation.
The situation was rendered more in
tereSting by a demand OF eX-Clerk ChaS
Luling and ex-Sherif William Hays
dc handing that about III cases be re-
docketed. Some of the attorneys claim
that in these cases Luling lost about
$1,000 and Hays about S1,s00 in fees.
This is a pretty neat little sum these
hard times and Hays and Lullng claim
that they ought not to lose the amount.
Thesa cases are constantly coming
to light. Yesterday when reporter
for the Eagle was in the district clerks
office an attorney came in to enquire
about a case that had hung bre Tor
some time in which two parties claimed
about $500, that had ben paid into court
There was q legal pointto be decided
and the attorney for the pialntiff want
ed to call the matter up in court but
one of the clerks in Mr.. Bridgeman'
office brought out the books ana showed
the astonished lawyer that the defend
ants lwyaer had come to Mi. kies and
got the money and receipted for it.
why in the name Of common sense
ne had no right to get that money
ahead of a decision of the court. sald
the indignant lawyer.
Then Mr. Bridgeman's clerk told him
that 1T is alright to say he can't take
il. but l tell you he has already got 1t
and when he asked the lawyer what ne
proposed TO do about il he said he would
hold ex-Clerk Kies for the money
These complaints of fees lost by the
district clerk and sheriff and further
assertions that the lawyers and not the
officers are responsible for the loss Is
very annoying to Judge Reed. He is
reported to have said that such talk
has tendency to bring the Whole court
into disrepute and that every lawyer
at the bar VINO values his reputation
ought now to demand full ana lalr
investigation of these charges.
The situation seems to be GROWING
more interesting and it is now asserted
that Mr.. Stanley's committee Will ere
ate more interest when they get down
to business than did the Boone case.