Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1905-04-26
ANSWER rs FILED.
j. X. C0dding and ". H. McCague Hand
it Back to County Attorney Grif.
fin. Motion to Dissolve
Injunction.

Wamego and w: H. McCague oi
this city filed their answer in the
Office of the clerk of the district, in
the injunction cases brought
against them by County Attorney
Griffin restraining them from prose
cutting injunction cases against al
legged saloon men in this city and
Kiowa. The county attorney
claims that it is his duty alone to
prosecute these cases, that he has
never refused to discharge his du-
ties, and that Codding and Nc
Cague have no right to "butt in !.
Frank H. Foster and w. H.
Cowles of Topeka, represent At
torneys Codding and McCague.
The motion to dissolve is set for
May 9Th, the first day of the May
term of court.
The answer is as follows:
Come now the defendants, w.
H. McCague and ]. K. Codding,
and for their answer to the plain
tif's petition here, say:
That they admit that Samuel
Griffin is the duly elected, qualified
and acting attorney of said Barber
county, and has been such continu-
ously from the 9th day of January,
1905, up to the present time, and
they further admit that as such
county attorney it is his duty to ap-
pear in the several courts in said
county, and prosecute and defend
on behalf of the people, all suits,
applications and motions, civil or
criminal, arising under the laws of
of this state, in which the state or
county is a party, and further aver
that it is also his duty as such
county attorney to diligently en-
force the penal laws of the State of
Kansas, and especially those which
relate to the sale of intoxicating
liquors.
These defendants deny that the
said Samuel Griffin has stood will
ing and ready to hear and entertain
complaints against the violation
of the criminal and civil laws of
the State of Kansas, and that he
has at all times been ready and
willing to prosecute and defend in
all actions, applications and mo-
tions, on behalf of the people,
whether civil or criminal, in which
the State of Kansas or said county
is party or interested, and aver
the fact to be that on the contrary
thereof he has studiously neglected
his duty in all respects in regard to
the enforcement of what is known
as the Prohibitory liquor law.
The defendants, further answer
ing, deny that they are unlawfully
the office and duties of
the county attorney for their own
personal gain, but aver that they
have been employed by citizen of
the county of Barber in said state,
to commence injunction proceed
ings against several people who are
unlawfully engaged in the sale of
intoxicating liquors in said county,
and admit that under such employ
ment they caused to be instituted
and filed in the office of the clerk
of the district court of said county
the actions enumerated in the plain
tiff's petition, and that the nature
Of said actions are correctly stated
in the plaintiff S petition, and these
defendants furnther admit that
these actions were brought without
the giving of any bond, but they
deny that Moses Wright, who swore
to said petition, is fanatic and
and that he has been un
lawfully influenced by these de-
PENDANTS to make afidavits to the
facts set forth in the various peti-
tons.
The defendants further say that
they deny that they are promiscu-
ously and without authority using
the name of the State of Kansas as
plaintiff in the bringing of actions,
and they further deny that the
costs of said actions will ever be-
come a charge or legal liability
against the county of Barber.
These defendants admit that
they have caused said actions to be
brought by reason of their employ
ment as attorneys for a citizen of
Barber county and are prosecuting
the same independent of the coun-
ty attorney, but they deny that
they are doing so for their own per.