The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1899-05-11
VIOLATED RULE NINE
Which Is a Very important
One in Appellate Court
TRYING TO REVIVE CASE
Of Parsons VS. Tetirick, Dis
missed at January Term.

Appellate court convened for the second
days business yesterday morning at
o'clock. Hon. Arthur W. Dennison of E.
Dorado, Hon Manford Schoonover Of Gar
nett and Hon. B. F. Milton of Dodge City
heard the arguments of the attorneys with
the utmost consideration, and for their
fair deliberations and wise rulings the
judges have gained the confidence and es-
TEEN of the attorneys of this jurisdiction.
The attorneys are arguing their cases at
length, and consequently usiness is not
progressing as rapidly as at the January
term.
Case No 468 being the case of F. A
Parsons, cashier of the Farmers & Drov-
ers' bank of Kingman, against w. c. Teti-
rick, engaged the attention of the court
yesterday, the plaintiff in error beng rep
resented by Judge S. w. Leslie of Kansas
City and Lawyer Fairchilds of Hutchin-
son and the defendant in error being rep
resented by Bentley & Hatfield of this
city and w c. Tetirick of Blackwell, O. T.
This case was dismissed on January 10,
1899, IN accordance with rult 8 of the court,
which rule requires the filing of briefs in
every case. And the dismissal was for the
failure to file briefs. Thereupon Judge
Leslie and Mr. Fairchild served upon de-
PENDANT in error a notice of motion
which was heard by the court, argued by
counsel and some authorities cited, all of
which was submitted TO the court. The
plaintiff in error. Mr. Parsons, who is the
Rago Kan, and cattleman, claims that
he handed the matter over to his attor-
neys to prepare for trial of the case at
the last January term. but his attorneys,
on the contrary, claim that he had not
notified them TO prepare the case. Judge
Leslie represented the present. Farmers and
Drovrs ank at Kingman. The defendant
in error, Mr. Tetirick on the other hand,
claims that the plaintiff in error neglected
to prepare for the trial of the case and
at this time he is resisting the motion
made by Judge Leslie to reinstate the
case and set it down for trial The mat
ter al! seems to turn upon the question of
negligence. When the Farmers and Dro-
vers' bank of Kingman failed. Mr. Par
sons was appointed receiver of the bank,
to his receivership Mr.. Tetirick purchased
twenty shares of the bank stock and had
made demand upon the bank to transfer
the shares of stock to him and to issue
new certificate to him. For some reason
Mr.. Parsons failed TO Go this. and man
damus proceedings were brought before
Judge Bashore in the district court of
Kingman county, Kansas The plaintiff
in that case was Mr.. Tetirick. who won
the case in the court below, thereuDon Mr.
Parsons appeared in that court and gave
supersedeas bond The dismissal of the
case makes the bondsmen liable upon
their bond, hence the contention. The ac-
ton is mandumas action, and was orig
inally tried as above stated. Lawyers are
wondering to what extent the Court of
Appeals VIII enforce rule 9, which has
heretofore been very strictly enforced.
Other cases and motions disposed of
yesterday were as follows:
Winfield National Bank ct al VS.. 1.-THE
ma Johnson. appealed from Cowley coun-
ty; submitted on briefs
Theodosia Hill VS.. J. W. Middleton.
sheriff appealed from Butter county: ar
gued by Mr.. Altman for plaintiff and A
I. Redden for defendant and submitted on
briefs.
Anthony Investment co. VS. VIM. c.
Arnett ct al. appealed from Harper coun-
ty; argued by S w Shattuck for plain
tiff and H. Lewelyn Jones for defendant
and submitted on briefs.
Minerva Catlin VS.. John Rankin ct al,
appealed from Barber county; submitted
on briefs.
J. f. Carr VS.. j. s. Springer ct al, ap-
pealed from Sumner county; motion by
defendant in error TO dismiss suit. argued
by Mr. Lawrence for the Plaintiff and Mr.
Rogers for. the defendant. Motion was
sustained and the case was dismissed.
Rachel Congdon, Administrative, vs. S
J. Bryan, appealed from Harvey county:
argued by Mr.. Bowman for plaintiff and
Mr.. reen for defendant and submitted on
brief of plaintiff.
Geo. ". Brown ct al VS.. J. I. Case
Plow Works, appealed from Butler coun-
ty; argued by NJ Redden for plaintiff
and Mr.. Smith for defendant and sub
mitted on briefs
Geo. \. Bull vs.. Chester Sink ct al. ap-
pealed from Greenwood county; passed to
Thursday
Westchester Fire Insurance Company
vs.. w. T. Coverdale, appealed from Sum
ner county; argued by Mr.. Elliott and
submitted on brief
John G.Campbell ct al vs.. Board of
Commissioners ct al appealed from sum
ner county: argued by Mr.. Dey for plain
tiff and Mr., ogers defendant. case was
reversed and remanded with Instructions
10 grant a new trial
Rufus /. Mcdonald et al vs.. John Kel-
Ter, appealed from Lyon county, argued
by Mr. J. H. Firth for plaintiff and sub
mitted on briefs.
Moses Gum vs. John II Richert. apptal-