The weekly intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1891-1901, 1899-06-17

NHN
Law. iOT the payment Of said debt,
Interest and costs
on The s5sh day of October, 1885,
there was fled BY said Francis u.
OSinss. in the oEee Of the clerk Of
the l.. 5 circuit eOurt, for the western
division Of the western district Of Ms
sOun, a petition for : scire facias in
the name Of Francis d. OEings to the
Use Of Charles P. wonderiy, agAins;
Lstayette county, praying that the lien
Of said Judgment be revived.
On the 18th day Of September, 1895,
the plaintiff, not satisfied with the
institution of suit to revive the judg-
meni in the United States court, in
siiiuted = suit against said county in
the circuit court Of Lafayette county,
Missouri, based 90 SAID original jndg-
msni and the assignment thereof to
Charles 2. Wonderly to renew the
sane.
Both Of these causes were resisted BY
the county By D through is alton
neys. 10 the ease in the United States
court upon objection by defendants
attorneys to the petition, plaintiff was
permitted By the court to strike oui
the words "FAncis d. Owings TO the
use Of said and the contest vas con
,inued IN the name Of Charles p.
Wonderly.
Toe county resisted the cause 10 the
United States court on the grounds
that Owings vas not the real party
interested; that WOnderly being the
real party 10 interest was = citizen Of
Missouri, and therefore the court had
no jurisdiction; that there was At the
same time pending In the state court
4 suit based on the same cause Of
action; tba, the judgment was more
than Ten years old, and therefore Of no
further effect, and on other grounds.
The cause 10 the state court being
one to reverse the judgment, the
county resisted It upon some Of the
grounds set Hp in defense TO the cause
in the United States court, and also
on the ground that the bonds on which
SAID judgment was rendered we're
issued in violation Of the provisions Of
the constitution Of this state and we're
therefore absolutely void, and had been
50 held BY Our state courts; that not
wiihstanding this fact, the federal
courts had held similar bonds to be
valid; that The plaintiff (WOnderly)
who was the real owner Of said bonds
was : resident Of this state, so that he
could not sue On said bonds in the
courts Of the United States; that for
! that 81 he and said OWings
entered into q combination and CON
sPiracy to wrong said defendant, and
10 perpelrate q fraud on the courts /;
that in pursuance Of said conspiracy
and, in an effort to perpetrate said
wrong and fraud, they pretended and
represented that said Owings was the
owner Of such bonds, and caused suit
thereon 70 be brought in his name in
the said United States court, be then
being a citizen Of the state OF Illinois (;
that a fraud was thus practiced on
both said defendant and said court.
That said plaintiff and said Owings
purpOsely concealed said facts from
said defendant, whom they knew to be
ignorant Of the real ownership Of said
bonds, for the purpose Of preventing
defendant from setting up said fact as
a defense, and the defendant did not
ascertain the real facts until IN Novem-
Der, 1898.
The United States court reversed
said judgment and an appeal was
taken to the United States circuit
court Of appeals, which sustained the
lower court in the revival. As the
judgment stands under this decision,
If a good judgment it is collectable ;
hut II the original judgment is not
good, then it seems the revival would
be in the same condition.
In the state court Judge Field
struck out the defense of fraud, and on
the 2jth day Of September, 1895, gave
judgment for plaintiff and against the
county for s23,92s. G3, from which
judgment the county appealed to the
supreme court Of Missouri, which last
court a few days ago rendered judg-
ment, reversing the decision Of Judge
Field and remanding the aust for a
new trial. This is regarded as an
important victory for the county.
Messrs. VIM. Aull, j. NJ. Lewis and
Judge Elijah Robinson were the attor-
neys for Lafayette county.
After the decision was rendered
Wonderly asked for a new trial, which
was o%yerruled, and the cause remand
ed for a new trial in this county.
When it comes up again the charge Of
fraud will be investigated, and may
have a great influence in the final
termination Of the case. 1t would be
a seven day wonder IL any county
could avoid the payment of a fraudu-
lpnt bond.