Griggs courier. (Cooperstown, Griggs Co., Dak. [N.D.]) 1885-1902, 1896-10-23

evidence that he did not go wrong. n
Mr.. Glaspell next said that there
was paid out during Judge Roses
t I'm 81, 400 for attorneys fees in ad-
dition to his salary, and that the first
official act he did was to advise the
board to raise his salary from 81, 100
to 81 800 for his benefit. This is also
false and untrue.
His statement that the board paid
out for additional lawyers fees s2.4O0
is, like all his other statements, de-
ceptive, misleading and absolutely
false. The only fees paid to lawyers
during the time Judge Rose was dis
trict attorney, from January 1, 1887.
to August Is, 1888, was paid to samu-
ell L. Glaspell, for services in the case
OF Stutsman county VS.. Mansfield, in
taking an appeal of that case from the
district court to the supreme court, a
case in which Judge Rose was an at
torney for the defendant, . case
originating before he became district
attorney, and a case as matter OF
course, in which he could not act as
attorney for the county after he be-
came district attorney, as he was al
ready attorney for the defendant. He
therefore recommended Mr.. Glaspell
to the board, and he was employed to
carry up the appeal to the supreme
court for which service Glaspell, in
presence of the board, agreed to take
$50, it being understood that the app
peal would be argued and tried ut
Bismarck, but it was argued and tried
at Yanlkton. instead; and he charged
the county S542.65. The bill was re-
ferred to Judge Rose, district attor-
ney, to audit and pass upon, and he
refused to pass the bill. This is one
OF the grievances that the gentleman
has against the Judge. There was al
SO $14.45 paid for some expenses or
costs in connection with that case.
Thus it will be seen that if the case
had been tried in Bismarck it would
have cost the county only $50, but in
asmuch as it was tried in Yankton the
county was charged 1892. 65 more.
The only attorneys fee that was
contracted for during Judge Roses
term was the $1,000 or $1,000 which
was afterwards paid, after Judge Rose
had resigned the district attorneyship.
He also states that Judge Rose sued
the count for Geo. w. Vennum for Il
simil r 81 i'm and when he was elected
cou lty attorney he got on both sides
of the same clse. Here he wished to
deceive his readers by his malicious
and false statements.
The facts are, that before Judge
Rose became district attorney he
brought suit for Vennum against the
county, and his name appears upon
the pleadings in the case as Vennum' $
attorney. The case was pending dur
ing negotiations with various tax sale
certificate holders and the county, the
county trying to avoid paying 30 per
cent penalty for many years and Offer
ing to pay : per cent penalty and the
amount they received at the time Of
the sale of the land. In the mean time
Judge Rose was elected district at
torney and when the time came for the
clerk of the court to make up trial
calendar and to enter the names Of the
attorneys therein respectively of the
plaintiff and the defendant in each
case, when he came 10 the case of Geo.
w. Vennum VS.. Stutsman county he
placed Judge Roses name opposite
the plaintiffs name because he was
the attorney for the plaintiff, when the
suite was begun, and he placed
his name opposite the defend
ants name, Stutsman county, because
he knew he was the district attorney
and this was proper for the clerk tt
do, and he could not do otherwise
and the same occurs every two year.
! in the different counties where the neY
district attorney has cases pending
| WQcEC uc lS UlC Cciu
of court was held Mr.. Vennum wa
willing to receive the money he hat
paid and percent thereon from tn
time of sale and the board ordered :
warrant drawn and given to Judg,
Rose for Mr.. Vennum and Judge
Rose receipted for it, and turned j
over to Mr.. Vennum, and when th'
term of court was held the case wa.
dismissed. These are the facts. ant
can the reader sec where there was
any impropriety in this transaction.
The author states s'there he collect
ed the noney-the money too on ar
illegal claim This is a true state
ment looking backward with the deci
sion of the Wallace case before us
but when this claim of Vennum' $ wa:
lpaid, it was G question which the bes
, lawyers in the country differed in tlleil
views as to whether the counties were
Liable and the board OF county com
I "a FL