The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1876-05-12
EMPORIA. NEWS.


OPIniOn Of supreme Court
Overriding Motion for Re
hearing.
1t will be remembered that in
1871, the City Council built side
walks pretty extensively, and also
caused Commercial Street to be
macadamized, curbed and guttered
between third and seventh avenues,
and levied upon the abutting lots a
special assessment to pay the costs
thereof.
A considerable portion OF the
property owners were induced to
bring five suits into the District
court TO enjOin the collection of
the tax.
In January of 1872, Peyton s.
GilIett, as city attorneys, and Rug
giles 81 Plumb, for the "iniunctors,"
tried three suits before Judge Wat
son, and in every case he made the
injunctions perpetual.
Judge Buck being appointed City
Attorney in the spring Of 1872, took
two OF these cases to the Supreme
Court where they were reversed
and sent back for new trial. These
two cases are reported in 10 Kan
sas pages 49l to 5l3.
Under Mr.. Bucks advise the City
Council relieved the taxes in 1872
In December 1872, the PLAINTIFF
amended their petitions to conform
to the ruling OF the Supreme Court,
and Judge Peyton going upon the
Bench these five cases went to
Chase county for trial, on change of
venue, where they were all tried
before Judge Brown, in November
1873, Buck representing the city,
and Ruggles the property owners,
and Judge Brown rendered judg-
nent in each case against the city
and made the inJunctions perpetual.
Judge Buck took to the Supreme
Court one of the principal cases
where 1t was argued at the January
term 1874, and on Dec. 9th 1874,
the Supreme Court reversed Judge
Brown, sustaiusng Bucks position.
The opinion of the Supreme Court
was published in this paper Dec.
10Th 1874.
On Feb. "a 1875 Judge Ruggles
filed q motion for re- hearing in that
case and on April 10, 1876, that was
Overruled. The Syllabus and opin-
ion we now publish in full. They
virtually govern all the cases,
though 1t is possible for the de-
PENDANTS to find some further delay
in the final settlement.
Judge Buck has in his conduct of
these cases secured q legal victory
before the Supreme Court which
of itself shows him to be one of the
most able and successful lawyers in
the State. And he has not only
evinced unusual legal ability, but
an unusual falthfulness to public
duty. The city was his client, and
no client could have been more
faithfully and efficiently served.
The work has been arduous, but he
now has it in q shape which will
result in complete and not distant
success if the city continues to in
struct him, as it has heretofore, to
secure it's full claim IN the prem
ises:
State of Kansas-Supreme Court
City of Emporia as Ii. Z. Norton
ct al. Motion for rehearing overruled
Syllabus. By the Court. Brew
er j.
l. The rule of consLruction-Genl
Stat. page 999, that "the provisions
of any Statute so far as they are the
same as those of any prior enact
ment shall be construed as q con-
tinuation of ouch provisions and
not as q new enactment" is subject
to the qualification 'unless such
construction would be inconsistent
with the manifest intent of the leg
islature or repugnant to the context
of the statute"
I'd. In determining the intent of
the legislature, the court is not linn
tied to q mere consideration of the
words employed, but may properly
look to the purposes to be accom-
plished, the necessity and effect of
the statute under the different con-
structiens suggested.
Sd. II will not be imputed to
the legislature that it intended to
go through the form ana time and
expense of legislation to accom-
Plish nothing or to do that already
fully and completely done.
4th. 1t may be stated as q gener-
al rule that when the legislature en-
acts . law which is the same in
terms a. q former statute, if such
former statute has prior thereto
wholly accomplished its purposes
and exhausted its force, the latter
law must be held, Notwithstanding
the rule Of construction quoted in
the first paragraph of this syllabus
to be q new enactment and moi
merely o continuation of the for.
mer.
STATE OF KANSAS
SUPREME CoURT.S
City of Emporia
CS.
II. E. Norton ct al
Motion for rehearing. Opinion
BY the Court. Brewer j.
A motion for rehearin2 in this