The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-09-14
THOMAS REPLIES.
Files Answer in Supreme Court
to Charges.
Denies All Statements Made in
the Suit.
Is READY TO ACCOUNT
Says Only Question is Over Con-
struction Of Law.
Asks That This Be Left to the
District Court.

Attorney A. NJ. Harvey, representing
r. L Thomas, clerk of the district
court. today fled his answer in su-
IRENE court to the action brought
against him by the Shawnee county
commissioners. The answer contains a
review Of the case charging that an
attempt has been made to make Thom-
as the goat and tells of the high
handed manner in which his office was
upset and his work interfered with by
alleged accountants. TIE supreme court
Is asked to recognize the fact that
Thomas is an officer of the lower court,
and that his petition for an accounting
&c the Shawnee county district court is
now pending. The question is, whether
the supreme court, when it is shown
that the demands upon Thomas were
never made, as they should have been,
through his super1Ors, the judges of the
district court. viii consider the case at
all.
Mr.. Thomas answer is a general de-
NAL of all the allegations made by the
county commissioners. and particularly
all charges or limitations of unfaithful
or dishonest conduct which were MADE
at the instigatiOn of the county COM
knowing that such allegations were
false As to the allegation OF the
county commissioners that there was
no controversy between the clerk and
the commissioners regarding the COM
pensation due the clerk, Mr.. Thomas
points out the fact that there has been
q controversy in the clerk office ever
since the passage Of the special act,
(chapter 213 session laws of 1901) as
compensation and method of report
ing to the treasurer; that he has re-
peated1y rendered money to the coun-
ty treasurer as full settlement, accord
ing to the law as he understands 1t,
and that the treasurer has refused to
accept; that he has made reports which
the county commissioners refused TO
examine or audit. and has made all the
-fr-e5 rev1<,T
The answer denies that Johan G. Kon-
ing, employed by the county commits
sioners was an expert accountant, al
though Thomas thought he was and
acting in good faith when he began an
audit of the books. Later Thomas dis
covered that Koning was not only incom-
uetent, but with apparent design to
Islander ard villify Mr.. Thomas. he /
proceeded to garble and mIseonstrue
books and accounts, and further that |
KOning conducted himself in a rude and
ungentleman1y manner about the office, |
greatly nampering the necessary work |
The answer goes on to review the man |
ner in which Koning and the county |
commissioners gave out SlanderOus |
statements to the newspa pers and tried /
to give the public the impression that /
Thomas was guilty of misconduct in |
office. and Of his unsuccessful attempt
to get the commissioners to let him look
over the KCning report for the purpose
of explaining some items and correcting
others. Inc ndsco Oh the hOIlnS re-
port is told in detail, as well as Mr..
Thomas action in the lower court to
restrain the new accountants from
harassing him and his office force.
The kidnapping of the clerks books is
also mentioned in this connection. The
supreme court is asked to dismiss the
action brought by the commissioners,
and award Mr. Thomas judgment for
costs of the case.
The case brought by the county com
nissicners to compel Thomas to sub
init while accountants carry off his
books, was the last move of a series |