The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-06-17

CANTON, O., June 16.-Prcsident Nc
Kinley, as young attorney, lost his first
case in the common pleas court of Stark
county. as shown by the records, but he
won a bride. He was elected prosecuting
attorney during the tendency of the case
two points gained and one lost.
The facts in connection with the suit at
law wherein young Mckinley was one of
the counsel, are such as to make the rec
ord read like romance. 1t is 4 case where
fact is stranger than fiction, but facts
only, as shown by the official records of
the county, are woven into this story. The
little case which grew into one hotly con
tested and long drawn out, first became
an issue before Justice Leow, of Navarro.
Stark county, in 1863 Leow is rock
ribbed Democrat, but has much love for
Mckinley. Leow, strange as it may seem,
has been in office as a justice since 1869.
The case on which Mckinley first tiled
his skill as attorney, in brief, was between
John Rostetter and Philip Sheets. Ros-
letter brought suit to compel Sheets to
pay damages in the sum of $2l3.20. The
parties were farmers, Sheets being a ten
ant of Rostetter. They had quarrel in
regard to alleged damage done to Il wheat
crop and over straw of the crop. Sheets
met the claim of Rostetter by a long list
of charges In counter-claim. An attach
ment was issued against Sheets. Sum
mons was served on Sheets March Is, 1869.
He demanded a jury trial. This was
granted, and April was the date fixed for
the case The parties We're not ready.
The case finally cameBto trial May 3. and
took three days to hear the evidence and
arguments The interest in the suit was
so intense in the viIlagesthat the building
in which the case was cried could accom-
nodate only a small portion of the peo-
pie who were anXious2 to hear. Many
were unable to get within earshot of the
proceedings
Young Mckinley had studied we'll his
clients side of the question and made d
plea which is described by these who
heard it as being betf42forcible and elo-
quent. 1t evidentlys-had its effect on the
jurors, for they We're out long time be-
fore reaching a decision. The men In the
jury, however. decided the facts in the
case were stronger FOR Sheets than against
him, and accordingly brought in YER
dict of $119.75 for the defendant The
costs in this case, at the end of the JUS
tice trial. were $136S5.
McKinley's client was not satisfied with
the justices jury verdict, and he instruct
ed Mckinley to appeal the case, which
was done Aug. of the same year The
suit was soon afterward called for trial
in common pleas court. Motions to con-
tinue We're made by the plaintiff and the
action was postponed at his cost. Mo-
tons Of q dilatory nature were interpOs
ed from time to time and the suit was
not finally disposed of until November.
1871, when jury brought in a verdict of
$50 for the defendant once mere finding
against McKinIey's client
The teTnporizing policy of Mckinley Is
shown by his long delay in this action.
The case also shows that Mckinley as
attorney believed IN getting to the ma
terial facts before the question was final
ly submitted.
There were things material and things
not material, however, that Influenced
| him in having the case postponed from
time to time. First and most important
to the young lawyer were his arrange
ments for his marriage to Ida Saxton, the
belle of the town of Canton. For Mckin-
ley had rot been too busy to neglect to
WOO and win the village bankers daugh-
ter While the case was pending between
Rostetter and Sheets Mckinley was get
ting ready for his wedding tour. He was
married in January, ISL His interest in
this important event OF his life is shown
in letter written sby him to Judge Am
bier Of Scion o., WHO was then Con-
gressman from this diStrict. The young
Canton attorney sent a, letter of inquiry
to Congressman AplblRr. at Washington
asking as to the baszt hotels and rates IN
Washington. and aeitha same tiIne frank
~ coafessng that he 53ai Mas. McIS .nI,t
| expected 10 be tn the national capital Oh