Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1900-01-22
A victory F()R [DNDY
Suits Against County Attorney Of
Hardin County Knocked Gut
by Demurrer.
Judge Weaver Decides That the
Plaintiffs Have No Remedy
at Law.
Ruling Regarded as Important in
the State History Of the
Cases.
snecial ID Tilnes-Republica

fore adiourning court Saturday made /
his ruling in the three cases brought /
against County Attorney L. II. Lundy.
These cases have aroused unusual In
terest among the taxpayers of the
county. not, perhaps, so much on ac-
court of the amount Of money alleged
to be enormously aisd mistakenly ex
pended as because Of the reflection
upon the motives and authority of the
county attorney and the clerk of the
courts, the auditor and the board of SUI
pervisors. A brief resume of the cases
in question and of the findings of Judge
Weaver may not be uninteresting tDl
taxpayers and attorneys in general.
The first two cases are brought by Jo-
seph Blair. q resident citizen Of Hardin
county, VS.. u. III. Lundy, county attor-
ney, and his bondsmen.
In the first case Plaintiff alleges tina;
during the years 1891 and 1895 said de-
PENDANT as county attorney filed with
the auditor of Hardin county ten sepa-
rate bills of Indebtedness against
Hardin county. That the items sought
to be charged against Hardin county
in said bills are not chargeable to said
county. That the board of supervisors
at their several sessions after the fling
of said bills in excess of their authority.
lserroneously ard by mistake of fact that
such claims We're not such claimsas are
authorized 10 be paid by Hardin county
sdid approve each of said bills as fled
1 and the county auditor did issue and
/ deliver to said I-undy certain county
warrants against the treasurer of Har-
din county. Iowa, in payment OF said
bills
That in the case of State Of Iowa
VS.. Charles Moore, in said court, said
Lurdy received from the said clerk $40.
4 which money was paid into the Office
of the clerk on forfeiture of bail bond
and not in fine or Foreclosure. and the
clerk in making such payment did 50
eTroneously ard in eNcess OF his au-
lthariiy.
y That in the case + State If Iowa VS.
j. ID. Cowan, in said court, the clerk IN
4 excess Of his authority aid on Aug. l,
i 1895. pay 10 said Luady s3o.S1. of which
Lpndy claimed $50 for his fee IN $500
y fine paid in, and the $, cents being M
4 terest That on Dee. |. 1899, said Lutdy
paid back to the clerk s.. retaining 70
This own use of the county money this
A n cents interest and the interest on the
q 81 fr0n Aug 1. 1898. to Dec. l.. 1893.
That in thecase # Hardin county vs.
chariss Hosay lid clerk did osi
March 80. 1898 pay 10 said Iundy S26.6l
!, which money belonged toand WAS the
property al Hardin county plaintiffs
f de,nand iudgsli IL against defendants
in favor oil Hardin county for S622S.SS
and costs.
Tne second silt also allsges the al
a lowing of claims not charsaable 70 tbs
' county in the sum Of sl7o.5s and also
lfol. certain filing fees and fines paid BY
ithe clerk Of said Lundy ii sxsess Of
authority Tlla. at the March, 1898
sltoiisl of said COURT in the case OF Stats
lof Iowa vs.. Paul G. -Aikin. the defend
4 ant defauleed his bond ard after
wards said county attorney was ord
Tered Ia proceed against his bondsnle
10 collect same That on Ney, Is, 1882
said I4undy effected settlement WIFI
said ponesmcn and received $500. which
Z said defendant has failed 10 urn ovel
u tn the proper officer or account for
I Plaintiffs ask for juasment agal1si
{ defendants in favor of Hardin county
.lsin the sum Of s5S4.6S ard costs.
: The third suit Is brought in the nan'
/, OF Fayette Holmes vs.. L. II. LundN
!, county at,ornay Plaintiffs allege tina
the grand jury Of said county at IN.
January 1899, term found an indict
lnent against one Henry Nestal for thi
crime of seduction OF plaintiff. Tina
said Henry Nezlal has never had tria
nar answered for the crime, and n
warrant has ever been issued for NJ.
) arrest.
That In Dee. 1899, plaintiff demande'
. of said Lundy that he at once cause
! warrant ts Issue for the arrestof sa!S
/, Nestal and placed III the hands OF tn
: sheriff and that defendant has who'll.
!, neglected and rafussd9to comply there
with. ard plaintiff praSs that q per
emptery order of nandamus issue com
inanainr defendant 10 Forthwith issu
or cause TO be issued a Warrant for N
arrest Of said Westa! and place tn
/ same in the hands of the sheriff.
: The above causes We're argued befci
e 81 Judge Weaver the first of last week 81
!. demurrer filed by defendants and de
5 cision was rot given out until Satul'
s day Judge Weaver said the question
: raised We're questions of importanc'
n and after consideration the conclusion
! to which he had arrived were, he tel
confident. correct as legal proposition:
He said. These suits are begun by citi
zens and tax payers of the county
: recover what they claim have bee
y, wrongful payments made by the count
lie through its board of supervisors TO IN
u county attorney. These are actions 9
a law asking for Il Judgment for the bent
IF fit OF the county. The first stumblin
IT block in this case is whether such
= right exists in a citizen to maintain a
y action of this kind. There is "a class
= cases which our courts have recognize
wherein A citizen is held TO have Il
right to bring an action in equity
RESTRAIN the p;lsment OF a claim whic
~ is alleged TO be Illegal, and 10 restrai
~ the board q, Supervisors from enteri.
ie into a contract or debt which would
il. excess of the constitutional limit ar
H. various matters where citizen b;
y been permitted to appear and defend Il
= the county where he alleges that ii
=. proper authorities have wrongfully
corruptly failet! to take the prop
measures for protection of the public il
terests but the case in question
IN within neither description. There is
~ allegation that the board of supervise
Of acted corruptly or that there was al
he combination or confederation betwe,
n the defendant and the officers. a
thoroughly convinced that the case c;