Article Text
# VIOLATED RULE NINE Which Is a Very Important One in Appellate Court. # TRYING TO REVIVE CASE Of Parsons vs Tetirick, Dismissed at January Term. Appellate court convened for the second day's business yesterday morning at 9 o'clock. Hon. Arthur W. Dennison of El Dorado, Hon. Manford Schoonover of Garnett and Hon. B. F. Milton of Dodge City heard the arguments of the attorneys with the utmost consideration, and for their fair deliberations and wise rulings the judges have gained the confidence and esteem of the attorneys of this jurisdiction. The attorneys are arguing their cases at length, and consequently usiness is not progressing as rapidly as at the January term. Case No. 468, being the case of F. A. Parsons, cashier of the Farmers & Drov-ers' bank of Kingman, against W. C. Tetirick, engaged the attention of the court yesterday, the plaintiff in error being reprisented by Judge S. W. Leslie of Kansas City and Lawyer Fairchilds of Hutchinson and the defendant in error being represented by Bentley & Hatfield of this city and W. C. Tetirick of Blackwell, O. T. This case was dismissed on January 10, 1899, in accordance with rult 9 of the court, which rule requires the filing of briefs in every case. And the dismissal was for the failure to file briefs. Thereupon Judge Leslie and Mr. Fairchild served upon defendant in error a notice of a motion which was heard by the court, argued by counsel and some authorities cited, all of which was submitted to the court. The plaintiff in error, Mr. Parsons, who is the present owner of the Valley ranch at Rago, Kan., and a cattieman, claims that he handed the matter over to his attorneys to prepare for trial of the case at the last January term, but his attorneys, on the contrary, claim that he had not notified them to prepare the case. Judge Leslie represented the prsent Farmers and Drovrs' ank at Kingman. The defendant in error, Mr. Tetirick, on the other hand, claims that the plaintiff in error neglected to prepare for the trial of the case, and at this time he is resisting the motion made by Judge Leslie to reinstate the case and set it down for trial. The matter all seems to turn upon the question of negligence. When the Farmers and Drovers' bank of Kingman failed, Mr. Parsons was appointed receiver of the bank, having been cashier of the same, and prior to his receivership Mr. Tetirick purchased twenty shares of the bank stock and had made a demand upon the bank to transfer the shares of stock to him and to issue a new certificate to him. For some reason Mr. Parsons failed to do this, and mandamus proceedings were brought before Judge Bashore in the district court of Kingman county, Kansas. The plaintiff in that case was Mr. Tetirick, who won the case in the court below, thereupon Mr. Parsons apeared in that court and gave supersedeas bond. The dismissal of the case makes the bondsmen liable upon their bond, hence the contention. The action is a mandumas action, and was originally tried as above stated. Lawyers are wondering to what extent the Court of Appeals will enforce rule 9, which has heretofore been very strictly enforced. Other cases and motions disposed of yesterday were as follows: Winfield National Bank et al vs. Uthema Johnson, appealed from Cowley county; submitted on briefs. Theodosia Hill vs. J. W. Middleton, sheriff, appealed from Butler county: argued by Mr. Aikman for plaintiff and A. L. Redden for defendant and submitted on briefs. Anthony Investment Co. Vs. Wm. C. Arnett et al, appealed from Harper county; argued by S. W. Shattuck for plaintiff and H. Lewelyn Jones for defendant and submitted on briefs. Minerva Catlin vs. John Rankin et al, appealed from Barber county; submitted on briefs. J. E. Carr vs. J. S. Springer et al, appealed from Sumner county; motion by defendant in error to dismiss suit, argued by Mr. Lawrence for the plaintiff and Mr. Rogers for the defendant. Motion was sustained and the case was dismissed. Rachel Congdon, administratrix, vs. S. J. Bryan, appealed from Harvey county: argued by Mr. Bowman for plaintiff and Mr. reen for defendant and submitted on brief of plaintiff. Geo. W. Brown et al vs. J. I. Case, Plow Works, appealed from Butler county: argued by Mr. Redden for plaintiff and Mr. Smith for defendant and submitted on briefs, Geo. A. Bull vs. Chester Sink et al, appealed from Greenwood county; passed to Thursday Westchester Fire Insurance Company vs. W. T. Coverdale, appealed from Sumner county; argued by Mr. Elliott and submitted on brief. John G.Campbell et al vs. Board of Commissioners et al, appealed from Sumner county: argued by Mr. Dey for plaintiff and Mr. ogers defendant, case was reversed and remanded with instructions to grant a new trial. Rufus L. McDonald et al vs. John Keller, appealed from Lyon county: argued by Mr. J. H. Frith for plaintiff and submitted on briefs. Moses Gum vs. John H. Richert, apptal-