Willmar tribune., 1900-10-20
the KNuDSoK BOND CASE.

Il -
On the 9th day Of November, 1894 !,
Thomas knudson, as county treas
urer OF Swift county, was found,
upon investig alton by the deputy state
examiner, to be short in his accounts
the sum of 81, ,3l6.l3.
His resignation was called for, ten
dered and accepted. No action was
taken until September 9th, 1895, at
which time Mr.. McC Cune, as county
attorney, assisted by P. j. sMcLaugh-
lin, of st. Paul, commenced suit UPON
the treasurer's bond given to the
county. S. III. Hudson appeared as
attorney for the defendants.
On the 18th of December, 1895, after
two terms of court, an indictment was
presented by the grand jury, charging
Knudson with embezziement of the
funds OF the county, but he had .disap-
peared and it does not appear that
any special effort was made to find
him. In fact a warrant was not issued
until the 9TH of June, 1896.
At this June, 1896, term, the civil
case was tried and verdict directed
by the court, in favor of the county,
for 81 ,239. 10, but no Judgment was
entered thereon, and, on the 10Th day
day OF July, 1897, F. P. Olney was
employed by the county commission
ers and substituted as attorney for
the county; S. Fl. Hudson having been
elected county attorney at the Novem-
ber, 1896, election, in place of Mr..
McCune, and, being attorney for the
bondsmen, was disqualified to act for
the county.
On the 28th day OF July, 1897, on
motion of F. P. Olney, a Judgment
was entered upon the verdict in favor
of the county.
On the Goth day of July, 1897, al
most seven months after Mr.. Hudson
became county attorney, a notice was
filed to the effect that John A. Green,
a clerk in Mr.. Hudson's office, had
been substituted as attorney for the
bondsmen.
An appeal was at once taken to the
supreme court from an order of the
court, denying the defendants motion
for retrial.
Upon this appeal the supreme court
held that the county could only re-
cover pro rata Judgment on the
county bond, by showing that the
state and county moneys had been in
termingled, and that, not having
shown that CONCLUSIvELY, the court
erred in instrucJing a verdict in it's
favor.
The case accordingly came back and
was again tried in December, 1898,
before Judge Powers without a jury.
F. T. Olney appeared for the county,
f and Brooks 4 Hendrix, of Minneap.
oils, appeared for the bondsmen. The
| ind I'D -;
favor of the county June 8th, 1900, for
! 81, 1878, with interest thereon Since
November 9th, 1894, besides costs
! and a statutory penalty of ten per
cent. for failure to pay over in time
and manner provided by law.
;, The bondsmen now appeared AGAIN,
by Mr.. Hendrix of Minneapolis and
> by Mr.. Hudson, and again moved fo1
new trial. This motion was denied
and they again appealed to the su
preme court from the order denying a
new trial.
t This appeal is on the present tern
t calendar of the supreme court and is
. set for December 18th, at which time
t the attorneys for the b0ndsmen anc
, the attorney for the county will ap
| pear before the supreme court an(
3 argue anew the motion for new trial
/ If the defendants are successful ir
convincing the supreme court thai
t substantial errors have been made il
the last trial, the case will be sen
e back to the district court, to be agar
r tried, but if, as is expected, the su
e preme court shall sustain Judge
: Powers decision, the case will be a
an end and the bondsmen will bt
4 obliged to make good the shortage
e There is another interesting phase O.
g the case:
When Mr.. Olney was looking fo1
:: :Eevidence, before the second trial, ht
: found Mr.. Knudson living on thu
! bank of the Red River of the North
I which is the line between MinnesOt;
I and Dakota, on the Minnesota side
= and had a subpoena issued and served
upon him to secure his presence a
court, as witness in the bond case
He failed to appear, however, and
after Mr.. Olney became county attor
ney, he was informed by the sheriff O
+ the existence of the old indictmen
and warrant. It is contrary to th,
law for the sheriff, county attorney
. clerk OF court, grand juror or an,
other court officer to disclose to an,
one other than court officer the fac
that an Indictment has been found
until after the defendant is ar
rested. Upon learning that Mr.. Knud
son was in. the state, the sheriff
. consulted Mr.. Olney, as county attor
ney, as to his duty in the matter, ant
was advised that he had no choic,
but to obey. the command of the cour
and arrest the defendant if to b.
found.
Accordingly he was arrested ani
brought up for trial at the spring
& term IN 1885,, at which time Mr.. HUI
son appeared as his attorney ant
N Iobjected to the suf1lciency of the Ole
Z Indictment. The Indictment was drawr
by. Mr.. McCune, he being county at
tOrney tthe time it was presented. Th,
objection was purely technical on,
: butt was sustained ~ Judge Oval,
!, after extended argument and Knudsoi
J was discharged. As the original offens,
]. had by that time become outlawed, th,
I'm after could not be resubmitted tt
: the grand jury, SO Mr.. Knndson wen
! free. Some uninformed peOpI,
have criticised the sheriff and county
attorney for putting the county 70 ex.