The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-05-01
Shawnee Co. District Court
Dates Back to August, 1859.
Record of Quiggle VS.. Walkley
Still in the Files.
WAS ON A CLAIM OF S54. 70
Everybody Connected With 1t
Came Out Loser.
Names of Well Known Old Tim
ers on Jury List.

ning?" was the question propounded
to Charles w. Bowers, clerk or the
Shawnee county district court. 1t
elected the reply:
and see."
At the tip top of the stack of fire
proof filing cases, where the dust
that Sits into the vault had not been
disturbed in a decade or two, Bowers
pointed out the one containing cases
Nos. 1 to 20. With step-ladder the
reporter got it down and withdrew
the papers in the case of Peter Quig-
gle versus Samuel T. Walkley, ap-
pealed from the justice court to the
United States district court for the
Second judicial district of the terri
tory of kansas sitting in and for the
county of Shawnee. The appeal bond
was dated August %, 1859. A second
look. into the case disclosed the ract
that the Quiggle VS.. Walkley case was
in reality No. 8. 1t had been shuffled
out of place by some earlier investi-
gator. There was other evidence OF
confusion for there was another case
bearing the same number. 5. They
had all been enclosed in new covers
of modern design. Hence, perhaps,
the confusion.
got into the territorial district court
of Shawnee county involved small
sums of money. There was one by A.
Rowe against G. Hawk for the recov-
cry of $3.50 on a promissory note; an
other of similar nature by Simon Cor
don against Daniel H. Horne for $50
and still a third for $3.50 by Caleb B.
Clemments against Moses x Brewster
Judge Jacob Stafford presided over
that court and continued there Tor
several years, the admission of Kansas
into the Union changing his 5uriSd1c-
ton from that Of a federal to state
court.
The Same as Now.
But the Quiggle versus Walkley ac-
ton showed that the delays and dis
appointments of the law were as char
been since. 1t seems to have been the
first hotly contested action to come
before the court and the envelope
preserving its record is filled with
poenas and sheriffs writs upon which
still cling the slistening grains or
sand with which the scribeS OF sixty
years ago were won't to dry the INK.
The names upon the papers in the
case of Quiggle VS.. Walkley are pro-
ductive of "reminiscences of early To-
peka history. The jury which heard
the case in the justice court presided
over by Joseph c. Miller before it was
appealed to the district court was
composed of Wilson Gordon. G. e
Gage F. L. Crane, D. N. Buffum, M.
r. Smith and Enoch Chase. A. j.
Ritchey was clerk of the court then,
hut there were other clerks before the
Quiggle- Walkley case was finished, for
it dragged through three weary years.
other clerks of the district court were
E. B. Smith, James Fletcher and L.
Macarthur.
Lorenzo Dow was attorney for the
plaintiff and William P. Douthitt for
the defense. The appeal bond was
signed by Douthitt, Thomas Gardner
and Joel Huntoon. The names of
Gage. Crane, Gordon, Ritchey. Douth-
or
and additions in the Topeka of today.
The oldtimer would find a lot of food
for recollection in the papers of the
Quiggle case. a lot more no doubt than
the reporter of today can indicate.
Both Sides Lost.
Peter Quiggle appears not to have
profited by his adventure into the
courts. Evidently he became disgust
ed and quit the state before his case
was ended, for one of the papers
which added material to the subject
of contention was a deposition made
by him before a notary in, Erie county,
Pennsylvania. Quiggle got a judg-
ment but the record Of the case closes
with the report of the sheriff that he
had industriously secured the country
for some property belonging to the
defendant upon which he could collect
1t, and had found none. By that time
Quiggle's claim for $54.70 had been
while the court costs had piled up to
q total of $10S.16, plus little some
thing for the sheriff who tried to serve
the writ of execution but failed.
Peter Quiggle worked two months
from May to July, 1858, for Samuel T.
Walkley for $25 a month which he
never got-so far as the court-record
shows. Walkley claimed that Quiggle
had collected money and kept it and
that he, in fact, was debtor for more
than the amount of his claim. But
the jury in the justice court found that
in face Walkley was debtor to two
months labor at S25 a month FOL
three additional days at 81 a day and
for a piece of rope variously denomi-
mated at different places in the rec
ord as a Harriet and a "lariatta,"
valued at $3.50. The rope had evil
IDENTIFY at one time been attached to
a valuable horse for whose care Quig-
gle was chiefly employed. The $5450l
claimed by Quiggle was, by the jury,
reduced to $40.10 by the counter
claim Of the employer.
Then Walkley appealed. The final