The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1894-07-17

renee
The jury in the case of the Kansas
National bank against the city of To-
peka- better known as the Decker, Null
Inns & Berry case, returned a verdict
against the city at 7:45 last evening at
Lawrence. after being out more than four
days
The verdict awards the plaintiffs $751;
500, Of which only about 5000 goes to
the sewer Contractors, not enough to
meet theft outstanding liabilities The
remainder Is judgment on a loan of
$4,000 made by the Kansas National
bank to Decker, Mullins s. Berry, with
interest At 8 per cent for i've years. As
security for this loan the contractors had
assigned TO the bank the payments on
their contract as they should fall due,
and it was to collect this that the case
was brought in the name of the bank.
A series of about seventy-tive ques-
tions were given TO the jury to answer.
All but dozen of the questions were
answered City Attorney Tillotson moved
that the jury be sent back to answer the
remainder Of the questions, but the mo-
ton was overruled-
Mr. IiIlotson came up from Lawrence
last night, while his associate in the case,
) B. lsenhart, has been home since Sun
day. Both of them favor appealing the
case to the supreme court Mr. Tillotson
says I'VE are far from satisfied with the
verdict and unless our motion for a new
trial Is sustained we viii appeal the case
TO the supreme court.
AT the February trial Of the case the
jury returned verdict for 1872 O0O which
IS about what we are willing TO pay. This
judgment would have stood if one of the
jurors had not been tempered with. I
have known right along that one of them
was fixed, but | only got it yesterday in
such way that l am not under any OBJ
legations to keep 1t quiet 1 have proof
OF what claim, and will take the
sponsibility of its publication. The
juror was NJ. G. Manley, the Lawrence
banker. The night after the jury had
agreed on a $4,000 verdict a man went
to Marley, and induced him to change
his vote in the jury room. He went
before the jury the next morning and de-
clared that a $50, OO0 verdict was
unjust because the city was willing to
compromise for $4,000 and had repeat
edly offered to do 50. The result was that
he upset the whole thing and a hung
jury was the result.
Il will send down by this afternoons
mail the papers IN my motion for a new
trial The arguments on the motion will
be made Friday.
fair and impartial in the trial but Of
course we think he was wrong in some Of
the things he said IN his charge to the
jury. And the skillfuI way in which
the jury ignored the evidence in the
case was remarkable. If we appeal the
case to the supreme court we would ex-
pect to have It sent back to a district
court for trial with some law Oh the sub
ject that the jury would be bound to
take into consideration"
j. d. VI Garland, one of the banks
attorneys in the case Is of course well
satisfied with the verdict and says he got
all he asked for. A. Washburn. cashier
of the Kansas National bank had up to
noon received no official notice of the
finding.
to more thousands Of dollars than could
be counted on one hand
While the plaintiff, the bank, is
satisfied with the findings, the
not The whole amount Of the
suit was for S219, OOO-the bank claimed
$6S,000 and got it; the contractors
claimed $4,000 and have been awarded
about $4,000
In regard to a new trial or a settle
ment of the case there is a divis-
ion Of opinion among the cOuncilmen
and city officials. Some Of them believe
that the city viii never get
q verdict less exactiug; others be-
lieve that the city can reduce
the amount The facts are that while
the city would owe the con
tractors nothing had they completed the
sewers, It is also admitted that the city
council a year ago generally favored
settlement on a basis of paving about
$4,000, but was prevailed upon to try to
do better. 1t is safe to say that that had
the verdict been at this figure the case
would have been ended.
Those who favor a settlement on the
basis of the present findings claim that
out of thirty-six jurors in the
three cases, all but five
favored large damages against the city.
The plaintiffs say they know that
in the first case ten jurors
favored a finding of $4,000 and two
about $95, 900, and that in the second
trial nine jurors favored a finding
of $150,000. The city must now decide
whether it will risk additional costs and
another verdict.
A History Of the Case
The case is one in which the city was
sued for $4,000. In 1888 the city
council let a contract for the construction
of sewers No. II and No - to the firm
Of Decker, Mullins & Berry of Kansas
City. Mr. Isenhart and those who side
with the city in the case claim that the con-
tractors were - lot of Missouri sharpers
who came to Topeka with the avowed in
tention Of SHINING the city Of Topeka"
but the verdict shows that the Jury
case. At any rate the Contractors and
the city officers we're at war almost from
the start. D. 9. AIetsker was mayor and
George 7. Nicely was city engineer. The
sewer contractors say that Nicely acted
unfairly; that he changed the depth of
the sewer and caused them great delay
and Inconvenience in condo inning mater
ial. On the other hand Nicely and some
of the councilmen thought the work of
Dnr Hull Par a -fo