The producers news., 1920-08-06

Supreme Court, appealing from 'the
findings Of Judge E1ner, and il by
chance the Supreme Cburt should n.
verse the Judgment, II Ju9fe Come1
the warrant given U Dollf in the
sum of $7,812 would then be legal
and good and would have to be paid,
and Dolin then will be paid twice. He
will be paid $7,8l2 IN the original
warrant and 81 ,lS3 psid on the same
claim on order Of Conner on the
Now If this is, not favorins Dolin,
just what is it doing? And where
and how has any Judge the right "a
Srdfs sse IS a1Ss4 iSae%sss anns, P;'d whe" mat
Now will Judge Conner avail him
self Of the columns of the Producers
News, 50 that the people may read It,
and explain this to the taxpayers ?
1The columns of the Producers News
are at yopr service, Judge Conner. The
Producers News does not desire to
wrong you. We only want the peo-
pie and taxpayers and voters to
know the truth and nothing but the
truth.
The people of Sheridan county
want justice and they know that the
scoundrels in this county are safe
until we get judge that>is in SYM
pathy in bringing grafters and law
breakers and public pilferers to JUS
tice is placed upon the bench, man
who believes that one law breaker IS
just as bad as another, no matter
what his position in society; a man
who believes that people who steal
the taxpayers money during the time
that our boys are dying for the hon.
or of the country in Flanders fields,
are as deserving of punishment and
humiliation as hard toiling farmers
who did not feel that they were JUS
titled in borrowing money at ten per
cent to buy bonds If you are the
man that is qualified for judge and
the Producers News has wronged you,
amends. and the columns of the Pro-
lutely free in which to defend your
ers News alone can elect the judge in
this district.
The second case on the schedule,
Case No. 3164, we discussed at length
last week. This case is where Dolin
flied a claim against the county in the
sum of $2,431 90 and Mrs. O'Grady al
lowed it for $9s97S, and Dolin sued
the county and recovered the sum of
81 ,97O72, together with interest and
costs, after perjury and fraud was
proven, making a Judgment for Do
lin in the sum of $2,12S.l2 instead
of $1,979.72 as Clerk of Court Chap
man would like to make it appear.
This claim against the county is just
as fraudulent as the one which the
county recovered the $1,000, but
there was Il chance to dodge and Do
lin ct a nice Judgment. Dolin would
have gotten the whole thing, we hon
estly believe, had he not himself con-
fesscd fraud in several items.
If Judge Conner wants to explain
the above judgment, the colunas of
the Producers News is open for him.
The next cases. No. 34OS and 1914
are the Coryell mileage graft cases.
These cases did not, come before
Conner as suits against the county but
on Il application for audit, after they
had been diSapproved by the county
auditor. This whole procedure was
illegal from start to finish and is
enough alone to retire Judge Conner
from Office on the grounds of incom-
petence. The supreme court, unan-
imouSly stepped out Of theif way to-
find against Conner, in this assumed
authority. This matter will be dis
cussed thoroughly in another issue
under the review of the Writ of Ger
tori case. In this case Conner al
lowed Corycll 20 cents per mile for
running his Buick car, in spite Of the
fact that the, United States Govern
ment only allows ten cents mile for
auto cost, to men in the federal SER
vice.
Case No. 3515 is where Conner, H.
legally, acting as auditor, allowed
Matkins an illegal claim, without legal
process of law, and all that is said
about the Coryell case above, can be
said abotu this. This was an audit
and not suit before the court, and
the Attorney General holds the claim
itself to be illegal.
THE ABOVE THREE CASES ARE
ALL MISLEADING.
The next case, the Lockwood Case,
No. 3348; wherein it is made to ap-
pear that Judge Conner disallowed the
Lockwood claim, and a bid is made
for the good will of the public. This
is an absolute deception. Lockwood
also came before Conner with a petit
tion for an audit which is unlawful
for the Judge to make, as the supreme
court has since held.- Clair Stoner,
through the attorneys, Onstad &
Greer, brought an injunction suit
against the land classifiers, Lockwood
& Blakeslee and tried the matter be-
fore Judge Conner and in keeping
with his other decisions on the graft
matters in Sheridan county, he found
against Stoner and for Lockwood and
Blakeslee. Stoner appealed to the
supreme court. Then Lockwood
came, in spite of the fact that his
claims We're in litigation, and petit
toned Conner for an audit. The audit
was objected to on the grounds that
the matter was before the court in
another action. Conner after saying
from the bench that the bill was a
just one and should be paid after
wards denied the audit because the
matter was in litigation and for no
other reason. The case as used in
Judge Comer's campaign literature is
absolutely deceptive.
The last case No. $685. is the mat
ter of the steel counter sections which