The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-11-02

misunderstanding of the facts in each
Of the subjects of his complaint. Three
things are complained Of
'First-Delay In the case of the state
ex rel vs.. woodbury..
Second-That I suggested withhold
ing further Information until the SUI
prene court should decide the Woeq-.
bury case.
'.Third-That proceedings in error
We're not prosecuted IN the supreme
court in the State VS.. Schiefelbein.
In regard to the first, Mr. Dunlavy
says that the Woodbury. case for some
reason failed to be fled in the supreme
court at the proper time, causing de-
lay Of so days The records show that
the application for a writ of mandamus
was filed by me in the supreme court
on March g. within two or three days
after the information came to me upon
which It could be based The return
day upon the writ was March q. II
the ordinary answer had been made at
that time 1t would have been necessary
to take evidence covering a period pro-
baby Of several months BY an ar
rangenent with counsel the answer day
was extended upon their agreement to
make such answer as would enable me
to raise all questions in the supreme
court by demurrer without evidence.
This was done and the case was ready
for argument at the June session of
the court. I think the records of the
supreme court will bear out the state
fled March and ready for argument
June makes a new record for speed
in that court Upon application of the
defendant, and over my objection, the
supreme court granted the defendant a
delay to the July session for fling his
brief. The case was submitted in July.
| had expected a decision by the LIST of
July, and but for the continuance on
the motion of the defendant would have
obtained it. All parties. so far as I
know, expected a decision of the case
at the October sitting of the court. That
none was rendered then was deep dis
with the court and do not know what
they are.
'Seeond-Upon the second point Mr..
Dunlavy states that in these actions
Mr.. Coleman was obliged to sign with
MI StuesS1 because of this clerks posi-
ton and the mandamus cases not yet
settled. He reaches an erroneous con
clusion from not understanding what
he is talking about It is true that
did in at least two cases sign the in
and seizure cases. But that I was in
any case obliged to do so Is certainly a
novel proposition. 7 dds voluntarily
out of an earnest desire to enable Mr..
Stuessi to get into court When the
third, or at least one, of his applica-
tons came to me for my signature, 1t
was late In the spring. and all of us
were confidently expecting a decision
Of the mandamus case at least as nearly.
as July. 1 did not wish to sign person
ally an indefinite number of inforna-
tons in cases to which I could not by
any possibility give my personal atten-
ton. therefore asked Mr.. Stuessi to
excuse me from signing further in
formations until the decision of the
nandamus case which I thought would
render it unnecessary. Neither then
nor now can I understand upon what
ground the clerk of the district court
or the judge OF that court refused to
recognize the authority of. Mr.. Stuessi.
But the impossibility of my giving per-
sonal attention to these local prosecu-
tons is perfectly apparent to any one
who stops one minute to think.
'Third-The third and apparently
the most serious of the complaints is
that petition in error in the supreme
court was not filed in the State VS.
Schiefelbein. The petition In error
and the transcript of the record in this
case was sent to me by Mr. Stuessi in
the latter part Of July. I still have 1t
in my possession. Upon~an examina-
ton Of the record was satisfied that it
(the record) was not in such form as
would sustain a petition in error in the
supreme court and that If filed it
would be dismissed upon notion In
conference with Mr. Codding, who, as
sisted Mr.. Stuessi in the same case,
Mr.. Codding agreed with me that the
record was not sufficient and that the
petition in error could not succeed.
informed Mr.. Stuessi of my conclusion
and had some correspondence with him
about it. I feel sure that any lawyer
| of extended practice in the supreme
court who will examine the record
now in my possession will come to the
same conclusion. I told Mr. Stuessi
that I did not desire to appear in the
supreme court upon a record which I
was sure would be dismissed and not
/ considered by the court. I assume full
responsibility for that conclusion.
''Fourth-Mr. Dunlavy also complains
| that prosecution was not instituted
against Mr.. ]. NJ. Wayde, county attor-
ney of Crawford county on account of
his alleged misdofngs. Some time in
| September, 1906, Mr. Dunlavy and 9TH
1 ers brought to me a number of Aft
/ davits and other evidence Indicating
/ that the county attorney of Crawford
county was delinquent in his duty in
/ the enforcement of the law and was