The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1903-12-02
CASE is PECULIAR.
Caddo County Officials Have Appealed
to the Supreme Court.


Apache, o. r.. Dec. According to
the Weeks Review the case of the coun-
W VS. NJ j. Showers and Q. Draper WAS
tried in the district court and a verdict
of guilty rendered by the jury. This was
one of the most palpably unjust vordicts
In the history of legal jurisprudence and
yet under strict Interpretation and en-
forcement of the statute and the instruc-
tions of the court it was the only verdict
possible.
The charges. as filed, charged that
Messrs. Showers and Draper. acting rs
the duly elected and qualified clerk and
director of school district No. g. had sold
bonds and issued warrants to the amount
of something over S7,0VJ in excess of the
per cent limit allowed by law; that they
had used inferior materials in the con-
struction OF the school house and had
charged for good material; that they had
sold the s., 900 bonds voted by the district
FOR 6 per cent at par whenI better price
had been offered; that they had bought
desks for the school and paid more for
them than a better grade of desk could
have been secured for; that they had ac-
cepted the sum of $50 as payment to
themselves for buying these desks, and
that they had discounted certain war
rants.
The charge about the material used in
the school house was withdrawn by the
prosecution and so did not figure in the
case. One by one the other propositions
were taken up and refuted except The eX-
ceeGing of the 1 per cent limit. which
was never denied. The verdict was Sc
cured on purely technical grounds.
The evidence showed that the bond
buyers were notified that these bonds
would be sold on August .. 1902. to the
highest bidder and that at that time
Rufus Conella was the only, ana there
fore the highest, bidder. and the bonds
were sold To him at par. to bear 6 per
cent interest Tor twenty wears, aud tho
better bids were not offered till later
after the bonds had been sold and con-
tract entered into.
In the matter of the desks eyidenc,
was produced to show that the company
which makes the standard desk che one
purchaseG) and the fauluess desk twhicH
It was alleged by DR. Mallory was hettel
and could have been bought Tor less) bad
stated that both were the same in quality
and price and that therefore It was sim
ply a question of Judgment on the par
OF the board as 10 which 10 purchase.
In the matter Of the so alleged e
have been accepted by Showers and Ora
per for their own use. the clerk = books
showed that the sum OF Sass had beer
credited 30 the district and Ar showers
explained that the discrepancy of I5 oeuu
WAS accounted FOR as exchange on IN.
Draft. This 81 was accepted on behalf
or the district rs 4 discount on n,
desks and was used IN the vaults a
the school house.
This cleared UP everything but III,
matter Of the 1 per cent Emit. In huildns
the school house that IS a credit TO IN,
town. and adequate TO its needs th
board trespassed beyond the per cen
limit. which was never denied Ia ther
But the town needed the buUdiue: il 4
worth the money and Tho tax-pavers %
thi-~distriet viii not and da not censnr
them for this. The court. however. In
strDoted the jury that II they foand IRON
the evidences that the defendants had ex
ceeded the per cent liTai, even thouc'
they had been honest aud no heae6