The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1895-06-15
"a HANDFUL OF DIRT MAY BE A HOUSE,
Full OF SHAME.'' CLEAN HOUSE WITH
SAPOLI 10

charging it to have been with intent to kin. and
the oIher with intent to rob. CONVICTION or &C
quIttal under one Information will be bar to
trial under the other.
Where two courts have concurrent juriS-
ton of a criminal cause, the court first &C
ring Jurisdiction of the OffenSe and Of The
of the Defendant, retains Jurisdiction
ill the final determination of the case to the
;luSOn of the other.
g. The defendant was arraigned and placed
on trial in the district court of Wyandotte
county. charged with assault with intent to XIII.
For sufficient cause the jury was discharged and
the case continued to the next term of court.
An information was then filed i'll the court of
common pleas, charging the defendant with the
same assault with intent to rob. He was there
upon placed on trial in the court of common
common pleas was without Jurisdictions; that
the prosecution i'll the district court not having
been dismissed. but being pending therein. the
district court still retained Jurisdiction to try
the defendant for the offense cha ,ged.
All the justices cOncurrng-
No 1863. The Missouri Pacific Railway COM
pany VS.. William Johnson. Error from ChAu-
tauqua county. Reversed. Alien. j.
Agency cannot be proven merely by the
declaration out of court OF the person whose
agency is claimed.
2. The declaration of agents and employees,
concerning matters as to which they have no
authority TO speak for the master. and not made
in connection with the performance of any duly
or the transaction OF any business for the EN-
plOyer are mere hearSay and inadmissible
against the principal.
3. All disputed questions of fact in an action
to recover damages for personal injuries are to
be tried and determined by jury. Tins court
does not weigh testimony Where there IS COM
petent testimony tending:to establish defense
and incompetent testimony has been offered BY
the plaintiff of such character to be likely to
influence the jury and verdict is rendered in
his favor a new trial must be ordered
All the justices cOncurring.
No 1OO57. The State of Kansas on the rela-
ton of the Attorney General VS.. the Regents Of
the University of Kansas and others. original
proceedings In quo warranto. Judgment fol
plaintiff. Allen j.
/. An action in the nature of quo warrantO
may be maintained IN the name of the state by
the attorney general to GUST the board of re-
gents of the university of Kansas from the ex-
ercise of corporate powers in excess of those
conferred on it by law.
The board of regents is such corporation as
is subject to the control of this court in such an
action.
,. Admission into the university is made free
by statute, and the board of regents has no
power to collect fee of So, or any other fee. for
the use of the library, or to exclude students
from the use of the library for the non-paymen5
of such fee.
3. The assumption by the board of the power
to collect such fees and to exclude students from
the library for the nOn-payment thereof is an
unwarranted assumption of corporate powers,
from the exercise of which they Will De ousted
by this court in suit brought in the name of
the state by the attorney general.
All the Justices cOncurrIng.