Mexico weekly ledger., 1902-02-27
CARD FROM RHODES CLAY.

10 the Editor Of the Ledger,
MEXICO, Feb. 22.-The article NJ
Gen. Kennan in yesterdays paper I
have carefully read but am unable to
discover any fact or argument therein
tending in the least degree to show
that either Miss Porter did wrong in
presenting her bill for services to the
city or the Council in allowing It.
AS to what the cases have or NAV in
the future cost the city has nothing,
SO far as / can see, to do with the valid
| ity OF this claim. In this connection,
however, permit me to say that upon
investigation l find Gen. Kennan has
unintentionally erred in giving the
amountof the costs already accrued or
which may hereafter accrue in the
cases. Thus far the city has only ex-
pended on the appeal of both these
cases the sum of $1S975. In the event
the city should be successful, then, it
will not only be relieved Of the pay
ment Of all unpaid costs but will also
receive back all costs already paid, ex-
cepting the costs Of the transcripts
and attorney fees, which are always
borne by the appellant and never in
any cases Of this kind recovered back.
The costs of the transcripts was the
amount paid Miss Porter, sl64.75. Had
they been ordered from the Clayton
stenographer then the costs OF same
would have been s357.3G.
The costs OF copy Of the evidence
ordered by Judge MeIlhinney which
was solely for the use Of he Judge, we had
absolutely no control over whatever,
any more than any other costs in the
case. He could not have ordered it
for the city and did not. The law says;
The judge may in his discretion,
order a transcript Of all or any part Of |
the evidence or oral proceedings for his
oeon use, and the stenographer's fees
for making the same shall be taxed in |
the same manner as other costs In the |
case. tSec. 10,l2O, r. s. of Mo-
On the other hand the law requires
the appellant 1.-THE city in these cases.
to prepare its own transcripts In order
that they may be made part of the
record. tSec.727, ct Seq, r. S. Of Mo.
This whole question, Mr.. Editor,
shorn Of all prejudice and bias, re-
solves itself into simply this: The
city ordered and employed Miss Por-
ter 10 20 TO clayton and report the
cases. She did so. The Council after
wards, with full knowledge Of all the
facts and especially that Miss Porter
would prepare the transcripts, ordered
an appeal. tSee city records, p. 24) |
AS attorneys for the city and pursu-
ant to said order, we obtained the
transcripts from Miss Porter. Later,
she presented her bill for same and it
was paid. Can anyone saya wrong
has been committed? AT this point
| also want to say that we had not one
cents interest In this claim. Our only |
desire being to see a legitimate bill
paid, ,one which the Council had order
ed us to contract on behalf Of the
city.
Only one point remains, Mr. Editor
upon which | desire to further com
ment and that is the letter Of Geo.
Robertson submitted by Gen. Kennan.
| only speak of this too, as tending to
show how Gen. Kennan has been
honestly missled in this matter and
also as serving to demonstrate the
occult motive OF Mr.. Robertson, which,
as we have heretofore declared, has
been underlying this whole ITEM
pest in teapot" In said letter the
following statement relative to Mr..
agreeing to an extention of
time for filing briefs, etc. appears.
| beg to say that, Of course, /
would be willing to grant an extenti0n
Of time ordinarily, but cannot see the
necessity Of entering into such an
agreement at this time, as the case OF
Mary A. Reed in the st. Louis Court
Of Appeals will not be triable until
next October and briefs are not re-
quired to be filed before September.
We on yesterday received the docket
Of the st. Louis Court OF Appeals
The case of Mary A. Reed VS.. City Of
Mexico, is docketed for final hearing
on March oath, next. The law compels |
US TO file abstracts 80 days and printed
briefs 20 days before the case is set for
hearing. Our abstracts must there
fore be filed by Monday, Feb. oath,
and our briefs by March 4th. II we
fail without good cause to comply with
the law our appeal will be dismissed
and the City compelled to pay the
Judgement in full, including all costs
u every kind. Thus 1t will be seen
why Mr.. Robertson was anxious to en-
ter into no agreement. After the
time had expired / venture the asser-
Lion that Mr.. Robertson wo d
suddenly have been seized with the
idea that this case was not an ordiRdigI
lne and refused to consent to the ethyl
its appeal.
But here Mr.. Editor, leave this
matter; the public is acquainted with
- - 49, fontc c,wrrupd{nr a. and