The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1908-10-24

says that the records of the courts
show thst on October 1st, Mr..
Noyes owed the county In illegal
fees and interest the sum of s54s.24
he having recovered $1OS.OO with In
terest in the Circuit Court more than
the Common Rleas court had allow
cd him. Had we access to the vocab-
ulary of the Republicans we should
say that Mr.. Clark grossly mis-
represents this case to the voters.
The records of the courts can sure
ly be taken as auth ority Here are
the facts ps taken from the petl-
tion and the records of the Common
Pleas and Circuit courts in this
case upon which Mr.. Clark hinges
his right to reelection.
Mr.. Clark. filed In the Common
Fleas court a petition elleging In
thirty-seven different causes of ac-
tlon. that Mr.. Noyes had drawn
Illegally the sum of s1O5125. To
this petition, the defendant, through
his attorneys, filed demurrer, set
ting forth thet the facts contained
in the petition did not constitute
cause of action. The demurrer
was heard in the Common Pleas
court and was sustained as to the
first twenty-three ceuses Of action
This is the only hearing of the
case which was ever held in the
Common Pleas court The case was
not tried to establish the fact as
TO whether Mr.. Noyes had drawn
fees illegally or whether or not
he owed the county single dol
lar The court simply ruled that
even though the statements made
by Mr. Clark in his first twenty
three causes of action we're true,
they we're not sufficient grounds
upon which he could be awarded
Judgment against Mr.. Noyes and
his bondsmen MIR. Clark chose TO
carry this point. which was raised
by the demurrer, to the Circuit
court on error. The Circuit court
heard the case end sustained the
Common Pleas court in its knock
ing out the first twenty-three counts,
with the exception of the eighth and
twonty-third. Upon these the Circuit
court said virtually that II the
facts we're in accord with the state
ments mPde by Clark in his peti-
tion, then the county might re-
cover II the statements are proven
The total of these two items in the
petition is s108OO and this Is the
sum which Mr. Clark says the court
found Mr.. Noyes owed the county
III ADDITION 10 the sum which the
Common Pleas court found. M.
Clark is woefully lacking in his
knowledge Of the lew, If he is not
trying to deceive the voters in this
case. No court has found that Mr..
Noyos owes one cent to the coun.
ty, The case has never been tried
upon its merits, no judgment has
been rendered in favor of che coun-
ty. Net a word of testimony to
determine the facts in the case hss
been taken by any court Mr.. Clark
with his pet Noyes case is exactly
where ne started, with the excep-
tion that instead of hFWing thirty
seven causes of action, he now has
only sixteen. Instead of suing Mr..
Noyes for S1051.25, Mr.. Clark Is
suing him for only $445.OO. the
courts having knocked him oct on
P"V"'So VI INC dlHOuHl lOT WHICH
he originally brought suit If Mr..
Clark is able to get any consola-
ion out OF the results of this case
as far as It has alreedy proceeded.
he is welcome to IA Mr.. Noyss
low has the priIif16slof answering
he petition OF Mr. 1<Safk, then the
'ase must proceed sSial end the
.Ourt must determine whether or
lot Mr.. Noyes drew Illegally any
If the amounts Mr.. Clark alleges.
This is the status or the Noyes
ase as shown by the records OF the
wo courts into which the case
las been brought
Following his reference to the
Ioyes case Mr. Clark ssys that
said Mirror" is accused OF having
rawn the sum of $882.37 illegally 3
rom the county for legal printing. ;
- a