Mexico weekly ledger., 1898-07-28
THE CASES.
The Decision of Judge Robertson in
Favor Of Defendant.
From the Fulton Telegraph.

Inc four suits against anne ID.
Henderson fer the recovery of fees
claimed to have been received by him
as County Clerk, in excess of those
allowed by law, and which have been
pending in the Galloway Circuit Court
in different forms since Jan. 80, 1892,
were tried on Wednesday and Thurs
day of last week, and the trials re-
suited in findings and judgments in
all the cases for the defendant-the
county losing the cases They were
tried before George Robertson,
Esq, of the Mexico bar, as special
Judge. A jury. was waived and the
court determined all the questions of
law and fact.
The decisions of Judge Robertson
finally disposes of these great liti-
gated cases, unless the county prose-
cutes an appeal to the Supreme Court.
They have been in the Supreme Court
on three different occasions, but were
not determined by that tribunal upon
their merits.
The decision of Judge Robertson
rests upon what lawyers denominate
as the defenses of res judicata or
"former recovery" The evidence
showed that in April, 1891, Mr.. Thur
mond, as Prosecuting Attorney, filed
a motion in the County Court asking
the court to review all of the quarterly
| ottlauropts roodo hx, NJ uaraaraop
during his eight years. tenure of Of
fee. The court only examined the
accounts of Mr.. Henderson's last
term, and the county appealed to the
Circuit Court and recovered judgment
in the sum of $375.50 against Mr..
Henderson for 1890, his last year of
Office. Mr.. Henderson appealed from
this judgment to the Supreme Court.
The county did not appeal. The Su-
preme Court decided that Mr.. Hen
derson owed the county only S19s.27
for the year 1890, and refused to de-
eide whether he owed on other years
because the county had not appealed;
not complaining of the judgment OF
the Circuit Court.
On return of the case from the
Circuit Court to the Supreme Court,
the latter, in conformity with the
decision of the Supreme Court, rem
dered judgment against Mr.. Hender-
son for $19S.27 for the year 1890,
This latter judgment Mr.. Henderson
shortly afterward paid and satisfied
Judge Robertson holds that Mr..
Henderson having been brought into
court to answer for the fees for his
whole term, and the Circuit Court
having decided in his favor for the
first sever years and against him fol
the last or eighth year, that the county
cannot maintain new suits aga:ns'
him for the years the courts decided
in his favor; that this would be tech
nically splitting a of action ant
vexing a man twice where he oughr
to be so vexed but once. In othel
words, Judge Robertson holds tina
the same cases had been once trieC
and could not, according to we'll es.
tablished principles of law, be suet
on and tried again.
The cases were strongly contested
by the attorneys for the county ant
for the defendant, each side readins
from and referring to nero au
, thorities. Mr.. Thurmond Represented
the county and Messrs. T. B. Taylor
I'D. p. Bailey and l.. w. Boulware. q
, this city, and Silver & Brown, o
jefferson City, appeared for the de
5 PENDANT.
The effect of the decision is to alb
solve not only Mr.. Henderson from
all liability to the county, but to re
: lieve his sureties on his official bond
from such liability.