The weekly intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1891-1901, 1899-07-01
TBE WOypERLy BOND Suit.

On September Is, 1895, Charles 2.
Wonderly began suit in b eeireuit court
Of Lafayette county, upon a judgment
rendered October 81, 1885 in the L. ;.
District Court for the Western division
of the Western district Of Missosri, for
l 1875. The aboSe judgment had
been rendered in favor Of Francis d.
0wings, and is alleged to have been
assigned to Wonderly. The truth is
that Wondetly owned the bonds, ami
our state courts had declared that they
were illegal and void. wonderly then
assigned them to 0wings, who lived in
Illinois, and 0wings sued IN the Dis
tnct court and got judgment, and
turned the bonds aud Judgment over
to WonderlY. Then Wonderly came
into our circuit court and asked TO
have his federal court Judgment en-
forced.
In the trial of the case, Lafayette
county, by her attorneys, Messrs. VIM.
Anll, j. NJ. Lewis and Judge Elijah
Robinson, set up the claim Of fraud,
alleging that the Wonderly transfer
had been fictitious, and that wonderly
could not sue in Illinois in his own
name; and that the assignment to
Owings was 8 fraud on the defendant,
and 5 fraud on the court in which suit
had been brought. 10 the trial the
plea of fraud was not allowed by the
trial court to be considered, and the
judgment Of the federal court was re-
newed, together with interest and
costs, and a judgment rendered in
favor of Wonderly for the sum Of
s2S, s2s.6S.
Lafayette county took IN appeal to
the supreme court of Missouri, and
that court, after a careful review of all
the facts in the case, have handed
down an opinion reversing our circuit
court, and remandlng the case for a
new trial. The opinion is written by
Judge Valiant, and all the others con-
cur. The learned jurist sets out IN
clear language the charge Of fraud as
made by the defendant, and says our
court should have investigated the
charge, and II any fraud was proven,
Wonderly's judgment should be
deemed fraudulent. He then shows
that If Wonderly did not make a valid
transfer TO 0wings, he committed a
fraud on the court and on the defend
ant by bringing suit 10 a court IN
which he had no legal standing.
In the IsT%ELLIGEScER Of June 18th
we gave q full review Of this case, but
since that time a copy OF the decision
OF Judge Valiant has been filed 10 the
Office OF our circuit clerk, concurred In
by the other judges, and the cause will
be tried at the August term Of our cir
cult court.
When Wonderly obtained his judg-
ment 10 1856, he made no attempt TO
collect the money on the bonds or the
interest. The bonds were Sni.B
township 10 per cent bonds, and he
was satisfied 10 let the principal and
interest accumulate. After his judg-
ment, our state Legislature passed a
law compelling suit to be brought in
ten years, or the judgment would ex-
pire by Limitation. This smoked out
Mr.. Owings, and he brought suit '.to
the use and benefit Of Wonderly,' six
weeks before the expiration OF the
limit.
A nice point Of law will be brought
up in the trial. II the charge of
''fraud" is sustained, it will probably
settle the case, for il he attempts to
begin over again, the limitations will
be sprung on him. He must win on
the ''fraud" question, or lose his bonds.
The supreme court highly compli.
mented the briefs filed in this case By
the attorneys for the county. We sure
ly hope to live long enough to see
some scoundrelly "innocent purchaser
lose his bonds.