The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-05-24
SUIT FOR MATERIAL
Dispute Between the Barber
County Commissioners
AND TOWNSHIP TRUSTEES
Appeal Filed in Court of
Appeals Here by L. C. Goff

Yesterday a case was fled in the appel
late court which was appealed from the
district court Of Barber county. L. c.
Golf of Kowa is the plaintiff in error and
the board of county commissioners of
Barber county are the defendants. In the
lower court the case was decided in favor
of the commissioners, who brought the
suit to gain possession of about 500
worth of bridge material which was held
by Mr.. Golf, and to collect damages
amounting to s100 for the detention of the
property.
In their petition, which was fled in the
lower court, the board of commissioners,
who were the plaintiffs In the action.
state that some years prior to the year
1898. the township of Kiowa built bridge
across the Medicine Lodge river and that
in the year 1898 a flood carried away two
spans Of the bridge. The petition further
alleges that, at the invitation of the
township trustees. the county repaired
the bridge at the cost of $3.50, using ma
terial from another bridge which had
previously been abandoned. The follow
ing year another flood swept away the
approaches TO the bridge and felt il in d
condition SO that teams were not able to
cross over it and that the river changed
its course so that it ran around one end
of the bridge. The commissioners then
decided 10 abandon the bridge and build
another one short distance away to take
its place.
In the contract for the new bridge it
was specified that the material from the
old bridge should be used in the new one,
but before work could be commenced, the
material had been removed by Mr. Goff,
who refused to surrender the Hoss ession
The board Of commissioners asked the
court to give them possession of the ma
terial, which was valued at about $500
and to allow them 500 for the damages
which they had incurred by the change in
the contract
In answer to this petition Mr.. Golf
states that the bridge was built by the
township of Kowa in 1887 at the cost of
about 5000 and that it was located on a
public highway and had been constantly
used ever since 1t was built He further
states that. when the bridge was partly
W
ment, verbal or written, between the Of
fcers of the township and the county
commissioners in regard to the repairing
OF the bridge. And that after the second
flood, when the commissioners decided to
use the material in a new bridge he re-
moved the same under the directions of
the board Of township trustees, of which
he was a member. He also alleges that
the county was allowed to use enough of
the material in the new bridge to pay
them for the expense which they had in
Cured in repairing it in 1898. And claims
that the township is not indebted to the
county in any way.
The point in the case is that the com
missioners claim that the township had
abandoned the bridge and asked the coun-
ty to take charge Of 1t and make the
proper repairs, while Mr.. Golf claims
that the township never had any inten-
ton of abandoning the bridge, and as
the county built the new bridge In an
other place, they were not entitled to the
material other than what they had used
in making repairs The lower court held
that the county was entitled to the pos |
session Of the material, but the town
ship refused to accept the decision and |
went up on an appeal. The case will be |
watched with considera BILE interest