The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1893-02-21
AN IMPORTANT CASE.
Justice Tucker Makes Decision That VIII. II
Sustained BY the Higher Courts, Be Far
Reaching In Its En-cts.

| Reaching In Its Elects.
Yesterday in the cases of Mr.. Tudors
and James Beard against the county COM
missioners of Sedgwick county, Justice
Tucker decided in favor of the plaintiffs
The cases were argued ably on both sides
| by ex-County Attorney Morris for the
plaintiffs aud County Attorney Boone for
the commissioners. If Justice fuckers
decision will be sustained In the higher
courts similar suits will be brought in al
most ever county in Kansas and the re-
suit will be the recovery of tens of thous-
ands of dollars by county, township and
municipal employees. The case is con-
tanned in the following bill of particulars :
Mr.. TudOrs, plaintiff,
VS..
| The Board of County Commissioners of
the County of Sedgwick, defendant.
| Before s. NJ. Tucker, a justice Of the
peace in and for the city of Wichita.
| The plaintiff, William TudoTs, COM
| plains of the defendant and for his cause
| of action says: That from the Goth day of
May. 1891 to the 9th day of January 1898,
as laborer he performed labor and work
| for the defendant as janitor of the court
house, in said county of Sedgwick; that
as such janitor he was diigent and faith
| full in the performance of his duties; that
| during the period of time extending from
| May 20, 1891 to Jan. 9, 1898, in
addition to working eight hours
each day as IS required by law, he per-
formed work and labor, extra time, to the
amount of 1875 days, for which he received
| no compensation that fair and reasona-
bic compensation for said labor and work
performed during said extra time is 81. 50 a
day; that said extra labor and work over
and above eight hours day each day was
done and performed, as we'll as the labor
and work OF eight hours each day, at the
instance and request of the then legally
authorized, qualified and acting board of
county commissioners of the SAID county
of Sedgwick, state of Kansas
Wherefore the plaintiff asks judgment
against said defendant for the sum of
go, costs Of this suit snd all other
Just relief. w. ;. NORRIS
Attorney for Plaintiff.
The following is the ruling of the court
on the case to which the defendants at
torney excepted:
This law relating to the penitentiary,
referred to by council. refers to each of
these individuals there, as officers OF the
penitentiary.
"Of course a decision under that act
would not relate to this.
Il am of the opinion that the fact of an
employe or laborer working by the month
intention of the legislature in passing this
law was to fix (as the title of the act indi-
Gates eight hours as days work for all
this class of employees, and it would fol- |
low, if that be the case If they worked |
longer than eight hours they would be en- |
titled to recover for that extra time, IN
less by their own acts and agreements |
they had forfeited that right to recover. |
The last section of this act, which fixes |
the penalty FOR the violation of it, would /
seem TO indicate that they could not make |
any contract with a laborer which would |
bar him from the right to recover for this |
extra time. They fix the penalty against
the officer for violating this in the third
section of the act. Then if the employe |
and the employer could not make a CON
tract in violation Of this without render
ing the employer liable to the penalty,
then 90 act on the part of the empoye,
such as drawing his wages without objec-
ton, do think would bar him from the
right to recover. The attorney for the
mas hied motion for non-sult and for
Judgment for costs; the demurrer raises
Su Substantially the same question.
Il am not entirely clear upon the QueS-
tions involved in this case; but my best
judgment is that this man. and refer
now TO both cases, as they are in the same
are entitled to recover for the
lay; and that the basis of that recovery
would be the wages which they receive
lnder their contract for the eight hours.
That is, if they received $50 per month for
eight hours work, they are entitled to re-
cover at the same rate for extra time.
"While there has been evidence offered
lending to show that this service was
worth more per day than the monthly
rate, / think that would govern. If l
make contract to work eight hours for
4 day, if l work any more hours, l am to j
be paid at the same rate. | think that is
The proper basis upon which to determine
the amount of the recovery, in each of
these cases
Now. Mr.. Beard has testified that his
work averaged three hours and a half a
day more than the eight hours. Mr..
Tudor testified land there is nothing to
this evidence), that he worked
three hours. / have not yet had oppor-
unity or time to ascertain the number of
lays, but in each of these cases the judg-
nent of the court will be for the plaintiff
'or the amount which their evidence
shows they worked, at the rate of $50 Der
month. Whatever number of months
,hese extra hours make at eight hours per
lay, they would be entitled to recover $50
or -