For lie .4rkansos Danner. THE POST--OFFICE

 N0 IT
{"newspaper_name": "The Arkansas banner.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 4034, "word_count": 730, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9810000061988831], "ccnet_perplexity": [729.9000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
MR. EDIToR-As my signature imports, 1t IS my wish and purpose to do JUSTICE to every man. In this wish, and for this purpose, l volunteer the correction of a small error which was made in my communication last week, in relation to .Nr. Woodru6'S dcfal- cation. It was an error, however. as to the precise amount, and not as to the fact of his dedication.

 stated that his dedication was about Four MouSdnd dollars; and then based my comments upon that precise sum. The fol- lowing statement exhibits the true amount, as we'll as the actual tact of his dedication; as may be seen by any one who will examine the Legislative and Judicial records of the State.

 On the 26th October 1887, WM. F. WooD- RUFF then Treasurer of this State, was found to be dctaulter to the amount 1.-Two THOU SAND, THREE uUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE DOLLARS AND EIGHTEEN CENTS. For this, the Auditor. in behalf ofthe State, sued Woodruff and his securities upon his official bond When this case came on for trial, before the Pulas- Ri circuit court, instead of meeting it on it's merits, and trying whether Woodruff really owed the money or not, the counsel of Wood ruff (ASHLEY and Watkins) filed demur- rcr; to the declarations; and upon this demur- Ter, which was purely technical and did not touch the merits of the case, the Court gave judgment against the State.

 To shew that the judgment of the court, in this instance, was upon technical grounds, and did not touch Me question achether Wood- ruG o1eed he money or nof, copy, as fol- lows, the causes of demurrer, as filed by Woodruf's counsel:

 ''Fjrst, That the copy of the bond the official bond of Woodruff filed did not show that the bond had been approved by the Go vernor as required by Law;

 Second, that profert is made of the origi- nal, and copy is given on oyer;

 Third, that the paper filed as oyer is no the original, nor a certified copy.

 Fourth, that the declaration states that tht defendants jointly and seUerally made tho bond, whereas it is not joint and several;

 Fifih, that the Auditor could not sue or the bond;

 i !Sirth, that there is no allegation that tho bond was deliuercd.n

 Any Lawyer will see, at once, that all these assigned 'causes of demurrer are futile ant frivolous; and will be astonished, no doubt that any court could have countenanced O sustained one of them, for an instant. While any man of common sense will see that the, were resorled to, by counsel, for the purpos, of avoiding trial upon the merits of tn, case, and in order to get out of court upon technicality If they had believed that Wood ruff did not o,0e t!e nsoney-that he was no a dcfdulter, why did they not le; the question of his iHdebtness--of his defdlcation, comt up, and be tried by the court and jury o 1 lis couniryn,ea The answer is clea and conclusve-they knew and Woodruff knew that he did owe the money-that h, acaS defaulter and they were afram to le 1 that question go to tae court and jury. Bu the circuit court, of Pulaski county, sustain. ed the demurrer; and he Auditor, in beha of the State, appealed 10 the Supreme Court by his writ of error.

 The case came before the Supreme Court at the July term 1889; and was argued by F. " IrapaaH for the State, and by ASH- LEY and Watkins for Woodruff.

 Let 1t he remembered that the case was now, before the Supreme Court, not upon it, MERITS. for they were not touched; but up, on the demurrer of Ashley and Watkins, the items of which have-afeady stated As was to have been expected, he Supreme courtre- jected, as untenable, o frivolous and futile every one of the causes of demurrer assigned by Woodruli''s counsel but for cause not assigned, yet appearing upon the transcript of the record, the demarrer was sustained and the judgment of the Circuit Court affirm ed. Now, what was the cause which the Supreme court found upon the transcript, foi which they sustained the demurrer? It was simply this the copy of the bond, as ap- bearing in the Supreme. court, did not have a seal, s'or scrawl by way of seal" affixed