The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1895-06-26

Ave may have advised it, but we
did not order it
Q-Was the advisability of raiding the
Topeka club discussed at your board
meetings?
A-Not any more than that the clos
| ing of all the joints was discussed. We
may have talked it over and made some
suggestions.
Odd you or the other members of
the board consult the city attorney about
raiding the Topeka club?
Ave did. We asked Mr. Tillotson
if he would like to have A. H. Vince
| help him in the case. MIR. Tillotson re-
piled that he was competent to conduct
/ the case alone.
John E. Frost land commissioner of
| the Santa Fe, who was one of the Topeka
| clubmen who were arrested, testified
that he was playing a game of billiards
with Receiver Wilson when the police
came. He was not able to tell much
about the raid except that he was taken
to the city prison by Captain Gish. The
officers were tOlerably civil so far as he
| knew
When the state had rested the defense
put A. B. Whiting back on the witness
stand. He was asked just one question,
and the argument as to whether that
question was admissible or not, con-
sumed all the rest of the afternoon. The
question which raised the subsequent
flow of legal elOquence was this-"Had
you any information regarding the man
ner in which the Topeka club was run?
If So hat, and did you communicate it
to the police?"
OF course this question was objected
to by the plaintiffs. To one not skilled
in legal knowledge it might not appear
significant, but the entire case hinges
largely upon the competency of this
question. If it is irrelevant the police
have absolutely no defense for raiding
the Topeka club. If it is proper ques-
tion the police are at liberty to tell all
they know about the Topeka club, bad or
| otherwise, and this throws the gate open
for them to impeach the reputation of
the club as much as they choose.
The lawyers were evidently expecting
hot fight on this vantage point and they
were prepared for it
Each side of the case had a score or
more of legal works with slips between
the pages to mark the passages which
they desired to read to Judge Hazen.
! There was addison on Torts' and "Coo-
ley on Malicious Prosecutions" to say
nothing of reports without end.
When Mr.. Sterry, for the plaintiffs, in
terposed objections to the question put
to Mr. Whiting by Lawyer Vance, Judge
| Hazen said: II want to hear from you on
that point, gentlemen He did hear
from them at more length than he proba-
bly, wished. Mr Sterry made the first
plea He talked nearly an hour. He
made no effort at eloquence and confined
| himself to logic directed to the court
Mr.. Sterry made an able argument He
/ introduced at least one point which has
| never been made before in the
history of prohibition in Kansas.
| Mr. Sterry read the amendment to the
Murray law, which makes it the duty of
all officers to report any violations of the
liquor law, or any rumors of any such
violations to the county attorney. The
law imposes fine of not less than 800
or more than $500 for any such failure,
together with the absolute forfeiture of
office. Mr.. Sterry contended that the Of
ficers instead of reporting any violation
of the liquor law by the Topeka club to
the county attorney had raided the club
themselves, thereby incriminating them
selves under this very law. Mr. Sterry
laid considerable emphasis on the fact
that every mans home was his castle and
that man could not be dragged forth
from it, except on a warrant, unless the
offence Was actually witnessed by the Of
ticer or else public safety necessitated
such a course.
Judge w. c. Webb replied for the de-
fense in an address equally as able, last
ing an hour and half
David Overmyer for the Topeka club
also spoke the point at issue Judge
Hazen took the matter under advisement
until today
During the arguments the jury was
excluded from the room in order that
they might not become biased by hear
ing the addresses of the lawyers
The legal battle between the Topeka
club and the old police force was taken
up today where it was left off last even
ing. The question involved was the ma
ture of the evidence which the police
might introduce IN their defense.
The police proposed, if the court would
allow it, to advance evidence calculated
to impeach the standing of the Topeka
club. The plaintiffs contested their right
to do this. The entire case turned upon
this one point When, therefore, Judge
Hazen decided the point against the To-
peka club and in favor of the police. the
defendants felt that they had gained a
great advantage.
David Overmyer, for the plaintiffs. con-
sumed an hour this morning arguing the
points in controversy. His speech was
eloquent but, as it afterward proved. un-
successful
Judge Hazen said, in passing on the
various points of law raised: "rhe Ques-
tions involved are important and the con-
stitutionality of a state law is called in to
question. Before arriving at the
main question desire to say
word in reference to section
three Of Ordinance No. 459. which
has also been called into question. This
court never had any occasion to pass on
this ordinance, although this court with
Judge johnson and Judge Humphrey
once expressed our opinions upon it The
views l expressed then I still hold. The
question was not before US then as to
whether the ordinance WAS void as a
whole or merely void in so far as it per-
; tanned to a special case in question. The
question of the validity of section 8 is
, now before this court to be determined.
l shall hold that it is valid so far as it
applies to sales of LIQUOR and places