The Globe-republican. [volume] (Dodge City, Kan.) 1889-1910, 1898-09-29

prepared . motion, not to set aside and strike
out but TOR review and modification Of %
much Of the final decree herein as purports to
restore and continue In force the Injunction,
ETC."
Judge Thayer by IN Endorsement On the
motion. without date. and which has not been
entered on the journals Of the court. overruled
the motion as OF the day it vas fled"
Whether that Endorsement was made October
q. the day Judge Thayer signed the final de-
cree, though the motion was not filed until o.
tober 90 or ON November !. the date that the
notice attached to the motion fixed for its
hearing or at some later date. Is tmmateriAl
On October 30. 1897, Judge Horton. one Of the
attorneys for the stock yards company or Its
stockholders, placed on file his ad1davit which
has not been controverted By anything on ME
in these cases and IS apparently the only evil
dence in support or in opposition to tho mo-
ton which could have been considered by
Judge Thayer at the time he overruled the mo-
ton.
That sfiidavit is consistent with the erased
clause Of the stipulation: it is consistent with
the erased clauses Of Judge Fosters orders: 1t
is consistent with the final decree: it is uncon-
tradicted on the record II not true why was
It not controversial! And why was it permit
ted that Judge Thayer overruled the motion as
Oh tQ0 Jay IL was ulSO duu uO ISCOIu 0A100 VI
the order:
The affidavit OF Judge Horton and the certif-
cate OF the clerk Of the United States court
that no affidavit Of any one controyeriing any
OF the allegations In said afidavit has ever
been filed in said causes appear below:
JUDGE HORIZONS AFFIDAVIT
ALBERT 81 Horton. being first duly sworn.
upon oath deposes and says that he is one OF
the solicitors for the compliments in the above
entitled case. that he was present in St Paul,
MINI, on Thursday, October 2, at the time the
stipulation between the parties herein Of that
date concerning the final hearing OF the fore
going suits was signed and considered by Judge
Sanborn, United States circuit judge Of the
Eighth judicial circuit and which said stipula-
ton was afterwards duly filed in this court in
this cause on Saturday, October 8. 1897; and
this af1ant says that at the time that said writ
ten stipulation was considered the said defend
ant L G. Boyle, attorney general, In the pres
ence Of Judge Sanborn and afi1ant. and also Of
Mr.. Wallace Pratt and Mr. ]. NJ Woolworth,
then and there stated that the status quo Of the
foregoing cases would be continued until the
hearing had before Judge Thayer for q final
decree. agreed upon by the parties to be
had on Monday. October 10. 1897, at two
o'clock p m, and that in the mean
time the said l. c. Boyle, as attorney general,
would not enforce or attempt to enforce the
new rates prescribed by the act Of the Kansas
yards, and complained Of in said bills Of COM
plant filed herein. and thereafter when an Or
der was made by Hon c. G. Foster, at Topeka,
Kan, on Saturday. October 9, 1897, to carry into
effect the written stipulation Of the parties
flied on said date for final hearing OF said
causes, it was then and there stated by David
Martin, one OF the solicitors Of the said Louis
C. Boyle. that L C. Boyle attorney general,
had agreed not to enforce the rates and charges
fixed by said Kansas statute Of March 8. 1897,
until the hearing Of said cases before Judges
Thayer and Foster as agreed to
And this afiant further states that on
Wednesday. October %. 1897, at Topeka Kan,
and that at the conclusion Of the hearing Of
said argument before Hon. A. NJ Thayer. the
said L. C. Boyle, in the presence OF said judge
again repeated his former statement, and
agreed that the status quo OF the foregoing
suits should continue until a decision should be
made by said judge. Hon A NJ Thayer
And this afiant further says, that the status
quo OF said cases has been up to this time con-
tinued in good faith by all the parties hereto
including the Hon L. c. Boyle, attorney gen.
eral, and that since the order OF this court of
June q, 1897, restraining and eCioining l. c.
Boyle as attorney general Of the state Of Kan
Sas from inforcing the provisions Of said act
referred to against the Kansas City Stock
Yards company, its officers and agents upon
the condition that the compliments should ex-
ecute and file a bond within Il days thereafter
with one or more sufficient sureties in the penal
sum Of SIS 0OO for the benefit Of the said de-
PENDANTS. including the said L c. Boyle, attor-
ney general The said L c. Boyle. attorney
general has not inforced or attempted to in
force any Of the provisions OF said act up to
this time.
"Afiant further says that said bond Of SIS.
600 was duly executed by the compliments and
filed in this court in accordance with the order
Of injunction aforesaid Of June q, 1897 And
further aflant saith MOI.
ALBERT a HORTON"
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3Jth
day Of October. A D.. 1897
(Seal) D. a MARTIN. Notary Public.
Ny commission expires September 8. 1899.
Filed October 30, 1897.
GEO. F. SHARRIrT Clerk
United States Of America,
District Of Kansas S.
Il George 2. Sharitt clerk Of the circuit
court OF the United States for the district Of
Kansas. do hereby certify, that the above and
foregoing Is true copy Of the affidavit Of
Albert b Horton, filed October. 80. 1897. as the
same appears on file in my Office in the above
entitled causes
And further certify that no other or fur
Their AFFIDAVIT Of any one controverting any of
the allegations in said affidavit Of Albert q
Horton. fled October 80 1897 was ever filed in
my ONCE in said causes
Witness my hand and the seal Of said court
At my ONCE in the city OF Topeka, In said dis
triot this 9th day OF September. 1893
(SeaO GEORGE F. SHARRIrT, Clerk
by F. H HOLT. Deputy"
The bond provided by the decree was fled
and an appeal was perfected by filing the rec
ord in the supreme court Of the United States,
where the case now lies dormant no steps hav-
ing been taken by either party to advance the
same
The only rule Of law that authorizes the con-
tinufng in force Of an injunction or restraining
order pending an appeal from decision Of the
United States circuit court is found in equity
rule 90 which reads as follows:
when an appeal from a final Decree in an
equity suit. granting or dissolvihg an injunc-