This is mnoGoSearch's cache of http://files.usgwarchives.net/ok/law/newspapers/lawsuit.txt. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared during last crawling. The current page could have changed in the meantime.

Last modified: Tue, 24 Jun 2008, 17:22:40 EDT    Size: 1844
Newspaper Clipping    Lawsuit of Ledbetter and Tolbert 

Submitted by:  Mollie Stehno    shoop@orcacom.net

http://files.usgwarchives.net/ok/law/newspapers/lawsuit.txt
==================================================================
USGENWEB NOTICE: In keeping with our policy of providing
free information on the Internet, data may be used by
non-commercial entities, as long as this message 
remains on all copied material. These electronic 
pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit
or for presentation by other persons or organizations.
The submitter has given permission to the USGenWeb
Archives to store the file permanently for free access. 
Persons or organizations desiring to use this material
for purposes other than stated above must obtain the 
written consent of the file contributor.
===================================================================
The McAlester Capital
November 5, 1896

The suit of Ledbetter and Tolbert against the American Express Co. 
attracted considerable attention at the U. S. court room a day or two 
the fore part of the week.  The express company offered a reward of 
$1,000 for the killing of any one attempting to hold up or rob the 
train on which the company was a carrier.  It also offered $500 for 
the wounding or disabling of any one engaged in a similar undertaking.  
Messrs Ledbetter and Tolbert were guards on a Katy train in November 1894 
when an attempt was made to hold it up at Blackstone, this side of Muskogee,
and in defending the train they shot and wounded a man named Nathan Reed, 
who then and there called upon his companions to aid him in escaping, 
which they did.  Reed afterward testified to these facts when Deputy 
Burril Cox captured him at Seneca.  Col. Sedgwick of Parsons represented
the company.  The jury returned a verdict for $500 for plaintiff.