Omaha daily bee., 1899-11-23
PAXTON CASE is SUBMITTED
sisc of the state ns Summed Tn Ne
fore the Court by Attorney
General Smyth.

LINCOLN, Nov. 22-(Special )-The case
OF William A. Paxton and others against the
state OF Nebraska, in which the plaintiffs
seek reversal of the decision of the dis
trict court of Douglas county holding them
liable on the bond OF ex-State Treasurer
BARLEY, was argued and submitted to the
supreme court late this afternoon. John C.
Gown, Robert Ryan and Frank Irvine ap-
peared for the bondemen and Attorney Cen
eral Smyth and Ed p Smith argued for the
state. The side of the state was summed
up as follows by Attorney General Smyth:
l. Deputy Secretary of State Evans and
Governor Holcomb testified positively that
the bond was left In the sccretarys office
trnaicts this
q Governor Holcomb says that the bond
was left with him on the 3rd of January.
No one contradicts this.
B. Governor Holcomb says that he handed
the bond back to BARLEY on the 3rd; that
Bartley returned 1t to him some hours
afterward on the same day, and that 1t
continued in his possession until he handed
II to BARLEY on Monday, the 7th to have
the additional signatures attached to 1t.
No one contradicts this.
a. BARLEY procured the additional sigma,
lures, brought the bond back and delivered
II to Governor Holcomb on the Sth, and
Governor Holcomb then told him that he
there until the approval was endorsed
upon 1t and then, either BARLEY or the
governor placed 1t I'm the secretary of
g. 1t is shown without dispute that Bart
ley received the bond back on the 3rd
without the approval of the governor, but
1t is also shown without contradiction that
BARLEY returned the bond on the Bird.
8. Governor Holcomb testities that he said
to BARLEY that he would be unable to
on the Bird and that he would have to
take, more time. No one disputes this.
The to the third and
3. The evidence shows without contradic-
tic ton that he was chargeable with $685.
ence in law whether he had the money in
his hands or in his pockets, or in a safe
in the treasurers office
,. The exact amount of specie which
BARLEY had hand at the close of his
first term is fixed without contradiction
by the testimony of the witness, Bartlett.
evidences of debt is fixed without contra
diction by Governor Holcomb. Neither
checks. drafts or evidences of debt could
represent the state money. They could
represent only the money of the person
or institution owing the debt against which
they were drawn. No question for
jury.
TO- The first half of this question is
answered In the answer to the preceding
resented by the checks. etc, accepted by
BARLEY from his predecessor was collected
after the commencement of his second
term is utterly immaterial in law, If he
accepted such checks as and for money
and the state by this action ratified the
aeceptance; and finally, Bartley's own
contradicted, shows that he had collected
the money all the checks aforesaid.
No question there for jury.
II. Under the uncontradicted testimony
reasonable men could not differ with re-
spect to the fact that he did so receive
the checks, drafts and other evidences of
Indebtedness
IL. He accepted them genuine, accord
ing to his statement in his day book re-
ferred %r to- and &c collected the @ cash on them;
end of his first term accounted to his sue
cessor for every dollar he was charged
with: and his successor settled with him
on that basis.
IA, This is but another form of several
previous questions. The amount he re-
by his books without contradiction and
the amount unaccounted for is established
without contradiction.
Is. This is another form of the previous
and other questions The evidence shows
conclusively the amount which he lawfully
paid out. There is no dispute about it
l6. The facts are all admitted. Reason
able men could draw but inference
from them. that is, that he did just what
the petition alleges.
IT, with respect to Swobe Taylor and
Paxton, the answer OF each admits that
til titon eT The e" evidence % 40 shows without it con- on
tradiction that this was done on Monday
the 7th and Tuesday the sth Neither Of
them say tnat ne TeHeu on anything III
signing the bond. What question of fact
was there to submit to a jury with re-
s2ect to them?
Whether the other answering sureties
knew anything about the matter or had
the intention alleged in the question, Is
not known, for the reason that there is
not a particle of evidence touching the
matter or intention in the record. How
then could there be question of fact for
the jury to pass upon?
is. The admission in evidence Of the
transcript as we have just shown, was
erroneous. and the admission was not suf-
ticient on which to base verdict
10. Whether they were or were not, is
immaterial. and If II were material the
paper which he signed declared that he
was bound the same as II the names had
not been added. The state acted on that
declaration, and he cannot now be heard
to say that he did not mean what he said |
Tho supreme court will adjourn tomorrow