The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-12-22
LEGAL JOKE
0kIahoma'S HumOr Stirs Judi-
cial RiSibilitieS.
HISTORY OF PERRY CASE
End of One of the Legal
TangIes of Oklahoma.
HISTORY OF PERRY CASE

Perry, 0. T. Dec M-The celebrated
Penny Richardson case. 50 long in the
courts Of this portion of the territory
and Of the interior department was tried
in the district court a few days ago and
the only branch Of the case left was then
determined.
The present suit was not a contest over
the title Of the lot, but was a suit brought
BY Penny in the district court against
Richardson and his bondsmen for doubIe
the rents and profits as given In a GER
tain bond in a forcible, entry and de-
tainer case originally tried In the JUS
tees court 1t was claimed By Penny,
after Richardson had won the title to the
lot, that Richardson had forcibly taken
possession of Penny's improvements and
a forcible. entry and detafner suit was
commenced in 1895 against Richardson
for the possession Of said lot and i'm
provemerts.
That case went TO the supreme court
and was decided in favor Of Penny, and
while this forcible, entry and detainer
case was pending in the supreme court
a supersedeas bond had been executed by
Richardson in the district court IN order
that he could take the forciole. entry and
Getainer case to the supreme court where
subsequently Richardson was defeated in
said case. Afterward and some three
years ago, Penny commenced suit on that
supersedeas bond and that case went to
the supreme court and was decided in
favor Of Penny and ne collected on his
judgment about $1,000 The present suit
and one determined in the court a few
days ago is a suit brought by Penny
against Richardson and his bondsmen
upon the original appeal bond given IN
the justices court in the old, original en-
try forcible and detainer case. The con-
ditions Of this 6ond were that the defen-
dant would pay double the amount Of the
rents and profits until he had compiled
with the order Of the court if the case
was adjudged against him IN turning the
property over again to Elisha Penny.
from whom he had forcibly taken it. The
amount sued for was something like $4,000
in the way Of rents and profits and the
judgment was for the sum Of s22sL67,
said amount being the balance due Penny
for double the rents and profits accruins
to him from Richardson and his bonds
men on account Of the failure Of Richard
son to turn the property over to Penny
If the forcible. entry and detainer case.
had been decided against him The day
that Penny had a writ Of restitution IS
sued out OF the district court against
Richardson after he had won his case be-
fore the supreme court IN the forciele
entry and detainer case Richardson en-
joine dthe sheriff from placing Penny In
possession and enjoined Penny from TAX
ing possession. During the progress OF
the trial one OF the best legal bonmots
ever heard in the court room was gotten
of by II r Thurston, Pennry's attorney.
Mr.. Thurston is d tragedian and in deep
sepuIchraI tones said that his position
in the case was that the plaintiff was
entitled to ecover for double the amount
of rents and profits from the time OF the
execution Of the appeal bond sued upon
until the present moment" The court
said. VERY well, Mr.. Thurston. but what
about the 81 900 judgment that you secur- /
ed and collected based upon the superse- /
IDEAS bond executed In the district court
10 take the forcible entry and detainer
case to the supreme court A" THAT" re-
piled Mr.. Thurston. SIS the penalty paid
BY the defendant Richardson for the lux
ury Of takin ga case to the supreme /
court OF the territory upon a mistaken (
proposition Of law" The answer was so /
apt that even the court was compelled to /
laugh heartily.