Kansas City daily journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1892-1897, 1896-08-08
JUDGE VANDIvERT'S SIDE OF 1T.


kinsley. kas., Aug. T-fSpecial.) on read.
ing the statement of Hon. j. W. Rush. Of
Larned, concerning the Rush-vandiyert
troubles. Judge Nandivert replied as fol-
lows:
ITO the Editor OF the Kansas CITY Journal
Assuring You OF my very high apprecla-
ton of your kindly offer to permit myself
and the other gentlemen Interested through
the columns Of your paper to reply 10 the
statement furnished you for publication
by J. w. Rush. of Larned, l gladly avail
myself of the opportunity.
Il assure you that 1t is exceedingly hui
initiating to be called upon to make reply
10 this sort of a communication and in
the past my course has always been to
disregard libelous publications rejecting
upon myself. but heretofore any such pub
i%ications have been made In local papers OF
limited circulation, hardly reaching beyond
my personal acquaintance. but as this is
made IN a paper that reaches many peo-
pie, and the charges are OF such a grave
nature, / feel that 1t is my duty TO myself
ana my family TO meet this matter fully
In the issue of your paper in which 1t is
II wish to preface what I am about to
say by the observation that this attack
of MIR. Rush's Is a surprise to me, as it
my. Judgment. IL inspired by that sort of
vicious desire for revenge that frequently
pnGInp,s a c criminal nn, w nhn has been f9pnd
haps Il more charitable view would be that
expressed by Judge Sterry in his letter
published herewith, In which he suggests
The Larned water works case was COM
rnnr, d, u rt the p pssN county district
ding, Il relative of Mr.. Rush, 10 foreclosa
q morigage on the water works at L.arI 4.
Miss Spaulding was represented by Hon
n. sterry. now general solicitor OF the
lantic 4 Pacific and Southfn Califor,,
Railroad Companies, and Edwin A, Austin.
of Topeka, kas,. and upon the filing OF the
petition they asked for the appointment
of AT. Rush as receiver. ! appointed him.
1t was my understanding that the plaintiff
was the owner OF the bonds sued on, and
] did not know at that time that she was
even a relative OF his, a%lthough knew she
Rush had any interest in the bonds. l
have since learned that Mr.. Rush. was the
I we're ow three o bonds nd 'e Of i sp'ose s saeh S dese uhers
in the petition, and seven more OF the same
denomination were subsequently added by
supplemental petition, Of all OF which J: I.
application for the appointment of a re-
eeiver was made on a verified petition in
Spaulding was the owner and holder. of
these bonds. Up to this time. I had had
Mr.. Sterry, Mr., Austin or Miss spaulding
with regard to these. bonds or the Larned
Water Company. and knew nothing about
closed In the papers presented to me in
SUPPORT OF The application for q receiver
were a part Of eighty-hve. bonds OF the
same determination, secured by the same
mortgage; that the mortgage had provided
for a trustee to represent the bondholdefs,
that a default had occurred almost "A year
prior to the filing OF the petition; that the
trustee was insolyent and IN the hands CT a
cult court and incapable OF, fulfilling Its
duties as trustee, and that IT. had neglected
such duties; and the said suit was brought
by Miss Spaulding on behalf OF herself and
all other bondholders, / made the city of
Harmed urom whom the water company
rental for fire %service) "A party defendant
for the purpose of recovering In the same
suit the back rentals already due. 1t also
made the delinquent trustee. the. Davidson
Investment Company, q party defendant.
II Required the receiver to give bond IN
the sum OF $1,000, which was given, and
Mr.. Rush, having taken his oath OF office,
took possession as such receiver and OPP
Grated the plant until the ?sth day Of May,
1885. At that time, the defendants nll hav-
Ing appeared and answered, and consider
able evidence having been taken, and the
case being about ready for trial, the owners
OF the remaining seventy-nve bends not
made parties defendant and having come In
by their separate. cross petitions. a conipro-
mise was effected between all parties to the
suit, by which compromise the owners OF
the seventy-fye bonds purchased the ten
bonds claimed to be owned by Miss spaui-
L.arned paid 8 1909 on account OF back rent
drant rental, which had been A.50 per an
num-, to S2.l25 per annum. II was the agree
ment that the 1850 to be paid by the city,
together with what the plant had earned
while in the hands of Mr.. Rush as receiver,
(Which was x3.65s.lsl. should be. after pay