Omaha daily bee., 1903-02-22

in which this resolution OF bill can be in
troduced so that whatever Is done must
be done expeditiously. There is little
thought that this movement will ever meet
with success. There is, to be sure, a great
deal Of sentimental talk to the effect that
BARLEY AMI his bondsmen should be given
their release. but this eranates from the
BARLEY ring and deceives no one.
As one Of the BARLEY bondsmen re-
marked the other day to a correspondent
for The Bee, the suits arising from the
embezzlement have been complicated and
expensive. Aside from the suit brought
in the Lancaster county district court De-
cember 20, 1897, to recover the shortage
then supposed to have occurred during
Bartley's first term and dismissed when it
was learned that it occurred during his
second term, the state has been involved
in various other costly actions.
History of Litigation.
It's subsequent action to- recover from
Joseph s. BARLEY and the ~sureties on his
official bond as state treasurer a shortage
Of S555 1906 was begun with suit in the
district court of Douglas county October
20. 1897. A Jury was impanneled February
8. 1898, and returned a verdict for the de-
PENDANTS February q. 1898. upon which tAe
action was dismissed. The judgment of
dismissal was reversed by the supreme
court December s, 1898 and the cause re-
manded for a new trial. A second trial OF
the case was begun In the district court
July s. 1899, the jury, in accordance with
a peremptory instruction of the court, re-
turning a verdict for the state, and judg-
ment was entered against the defendants
July %. 1899, for $646, 31S.45 The case was
again taken to the supreme court Septem-
Der ~, 1890; the judgment in favor Of the
state was there reversed december 10,
1899, and the cause was remanded to the
district court for another trial. The third
trial was begun July 6. 1901, and resulted
In a verdict, July 10, 1901, in favor Of the
state and against the ~sureties z. e.
Brown, C. G.. McNish and John H. Ames,
for $545, 947.16 BY this verdict Sureties
w. A. Paxton, Thomas Swobe and Cadet
Taylor were released from liability; judg-
ment was rendered in accordance with the
verdict; petitions in error were filed in the
supreme court by the state and by e. e
Brown, G. G. McNish and John H. Ames
The case was argued before the supreme
court February 4, 1902, and the judgment
below was reversed as to all parties June
4, 1902, and the cause was remanded tC
the district court of Douglas county
where 1t is to come up for a fourth tria'
at the spring term.
Some Facts About DefalcatiOn.
In view Of the efforts being made to de.
prlve the state OF remuneration Of its heavy
losses entailed through the rascsuty OF thu
man it twice elected as the custodian o.
its public funds. a brief statement OF Bart
ley's treachery would not be out OF place
Bartley's total shortage was $685., 574.61
He disposed Of $3.50. 900 without turning an!
Of the proceeds into the treasury. In tax
ing up the warrant he used s201, Ss4.05 o
the states money. His own statemen
showed that he should have had in hi
possession $685.. s7s.0s more of permanen
school funds than were accounted for. l
was proved that he placed sl7S12.4S NOR
deposits in suspended state der ositor
banks than he had any legal right to dc
This brings the total shortage up to $555.
574.61. But by the wear and tear Of tire
trials in court the amount that is now hel
against BARLEY and his bondsmen and 10
which a new suit will begin in the distriC
court In Douglas county at the spring teri
is $545, 947.16 and interest from the tim
BARLEY went out Of Office at the end Of hi
second term, January Z, 1897.