The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1897-05-13
ADDITIONAL LOCAL MATTERS
APPELLATE COURT
Peculiar Bridge Case From Lyon County
Proceedings In Detail

APPELLATE COURT
Peculiar Bridge Case From Lyon County
Proceedings In Detail
All the judges were present at the
opening session Of the appellate court
yesterday. Probably the most import
ant case for hearing yesterday was~the
Kansas City Bridge company KS Lyon
county. 1t appears that adjoining town
ship one in Lyon county and ono in Cof-
fey county wanted to build a bridge
across a stream that ran between tbs
Two.
Falling to get together any other way
the matter was brought before the legis-
iature and bill passed to take slice
out Of the Lyon county township and
attach 1t to the Coffey county division.
In doing this the legislature detached
the territory from the Lyon county town
ship but failed to tack it on to anything
and the result is that part Of the bridge
is on land that isn't in any township
The law also provides that no township
shall appropriate more than two thou
sand dollars for bridge purposes without
submitting the proposition to vote.
This bridge finally cost more than $1,000
and the Kansas City Bridge company
sued the County.
The case was argued by Mr.. Harvey
FIRTH Of Emporia and involves the pow
er Of the county commissioners to ap-
propriate money to build a bridge as
well as the power to issue warrants to
pay for the same. Mr.. Firth held in
-; e;~
county was not liable for the claim sued
on and involved in this action for which
the Kansas City Bridge company sued
and recovered in the court below, as fol-
lows:
First-No portion Of the land upon
which The bridge was built belonged 10
Lyon county.
Second-The township had no power to
subscribe to the fund for building the
bridge.
Third-As the bridge was to cost more
.han s",C0o. the matter should have been
submitted to a vote.
Fourth-The township had no power to
issue the Gwarrant sued on.
Fifth-That the warrant was not .
valid warrant on its face.
Sixth-The township never contracted
to build the bridge.
The following cases were disposed 81
by the court:
Mary G. Prigg vs.. Charles w. Wilson;
submitted on motion for receiver.
A., T. & S. F. r. r. Co. VS.. ]. D. Con-
nor; submitted on motion to dismiss.
j. A. Smith VS.. First National bank;
dismissed
]. C. oMorse vs. G. NJ. Cook; submit
ted.
H. NJ. Beers. VS.. L. A. Bunker; SUBJ
mitted on motion to revive.
City OF Emporia VS.. e. W. Waggoner;
submitted.
G. E o. Wis.rand VS.. W. c. Parker:
motion II receive continued.
w. VI. Ford, ct al VS., National Mort
gage and De5enture Co.; submitted.
A. T. & S. F. r. R. Co VS.. O.. S. Nor
rhrop; submitted.
Hugh Frazier VS.. Harvey Taylor; sub
mitted on motion t. vaoate.
Minnesota Threshing Co. vs.. P. NJ.
Await, ct al: submitted.
Elmendaro Township, Lyon county vs..
Kansas City Bridge company: submit
ted.
Charles ]. Scruton VS.. sallie j. Hall;
submitted.
Leman-Higgins Grocer Co. vs.. James
McLain; submitted on motion to dis.
miss.
Valley State bank VS.. J. r. Burnham:
submitted on motion to dismiss.
CIs
company VS.. c. NJ. Knowles; submitted
on motion to dismiss.
N. B. Blanton VS. Phelps Biglow Wind
Mil CO.; continued to October.
The following cases from the Western
division were submitted on motion to
dismiss:
D. NJ. Perry & Co. VS.. John Ballinger
ct al.
D. NJ Perry & Co. VS.. NJ. D. Bieher.
Same VS.. o. NJ. Shook.
same vs.. E. A. Smith
Same vs.. FURRY Kemper.
]. Harvey Firth of Emporia was ad-
mitted to practice in the appellate cour..
The following attorneys from abroad
were present W. W. Schw;pn, yelling |
ton; W. 8. Cade. Anthony: ]. C. Pol
lock. Winfield; James McDermott and G.. |
A. Buchanan, Winfield; j. w. Roberts,
James McKinstry. F. F. Prigg and j.
w. Rose, Hutchinson: c. T. Atkinson.
Kansas City: r. P. Kelly. Eureka; H.
A. Kerr. Conway Springs. and Claud
Hamilton. Topeka.
On the the opening OF court on Tues |
day Judge Dennison stated 20 the bar
that while the court was always ready
to hear any matter Of urgent necessity
from other divisions and accommodate
parties and counsel. We; the court could
not permit :he business OF one division
10 be delayed or crowded by business