The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1895-01-04
CAN'T GET ACTION.
The Weakness of Our Judicial
System
Is Again Shown Up in the
WaterWOrks Case.
The Everlasting Legal Techni-
cality" Coming Up
POSTPONES THE TRIAL
The Waterworks Case No EX-
ceptiOn to the Rule,
That When the People Fight
Corporations
THEY CAN BE DELAYED
By Legal Quibbles Invented by
the Lawyers
And Acquiesced in Too Often by
the Courts.

The city lost the first point which has
been passed on in the celebrated water
works case.
In the district court the case was
called by Judge Pro TEN J. G. Slonecker
this morning and both sides expressed
their readiness to proceed with the trial;
but defendants had a surprise to spring.
A. L. Williams offered a demurrer to
the city's petition on the ground that il
did not constitute a sufficient cause of
action. He claimed that the question of
the impurity of the water should be
eliminated from the case; and the con-
troversy should be settled on the merits
as to whether or not the water company
is obliged under its charter to extend its
mains.
City Attorney Tillotson replied that
the quality of the water furnished was IL
proper one to be tested at the trial OF the
case. In the petition the city charges
impure water. In the defendants an
swer they denied the charge. The city
is prepared to prove its charges and
wishes only an opportunity to do So
S. B. Isenhart for the city read the
petition in the case and at its conclusion
said: III the defendants wanted this
petition more defGite and specific they
had means of making it so without wait
ing until they got into court to raise the
objections"
After considerable more wrangling,
during which a supreme court decision
in water works case from Burlington
was cited, Judge Slonecker decided that
the kind of water furnished did not arise
in the case, and Mr.. Williams objections
were sustained SO far they pertained
only to the quality of the water. Judge
SIonecker said that failure TO extend and
an inadequate supply were proper mat
ters for evidence
This did not satisfy either City Attor-
ney TillOtsOn or Mr. Isenhart, and they
asked for time in which to amend their
petition. There was a lively tilt when
Mr.. Isenhart asked for time and Judge
Slonecker objected.
This is the first time | ever knew of
a lawyer being refused the right to
amend his petition in this court" said
Isenhart.
Not after the trial has been COM
menced," replied the court
well, this trial hasn't commenced yet
We were just getting ready when Mr..
| Williams made his demurrer"
"How much time do you want?"
"NOt very much time"
"W hat do you want to amend the petit
ton for?"-
Il am not usually asked to state in ad-
vance what my pleading is gong to be-
You will have TO in this case. Mr..
Isenhart"
Nv ell, then, we wish to amend the pc
tition in such way as will make it in
keeping with the decision of the su-
preme court and the rulings of this
court
Mr. Isenhart and Mr.. Tillotson agreed
that five days would be all the time they
needed, and Mr. Williams said he had no
objections provided his side was given
! twenty days in which to plead error or
demur. This was finally agreed to and
the case was continued for the term
The counsel for the city says that
when the case comes for final trial il
may be heard before some other judge
pro tenn than Mr.. Slonecker.
Mr.. Williams objected in court to what
he called trying the case in the papers.
by reason of what the STATE JOURNAL
has said against the Topeka company a:
a corporation. He was especially anx-
ious that it should appear that it wasn't
the water company who caused this con
tinuance and consequent delay.
The waterworks case had resolved
itself into three charges-failure to ex
tend its mains as agreed in the contract
failure to maintain the fire pressure anC
adequate amount of water named in the
contract, and failure to provide good
clear and wholesome" described in tn,
charter. 1t was for these breaches O
contract, but more especially the frs
! one that the council asked to have tht
| charter and contract annulled. The cit,
is prepared to prove by chemical ana
lysis that the water is impure. 1t car
also prove that the pressure is not suffi
cient to send ten streams to height 0
100 feet at the same time, as called for il
the contract.
The water company admits that it ha
been ordered to extend its mains. and re
fuses to do SO, taking merely what ar
you going to do about it," policy.
The city was represented at the tria
by Mr. Tillotson and Mr.. Isenhart Cit
Engineer Tweeddale and Prof Lovewel
of Washhurn college, were present a
witnesses.
he defense was headed by A L. vii
liams. with ". II. Loomis and Charlie
Blood Smith not far away. Receiver E
Summerfeld of the water company an,