The Topeka state journal., 1897-12-08
ADVANTAGE
FOR KEPLEY.
Contest Court Decides That
Cooks Attorneys
Can't Charge KepIey With
Bribery and
Distributing Liquor Without
Naming Persons or Places.
NO GENERAL CHARGES
Will Go, is the Decision of the
Court.
Privilege of Introducing Testi-
mOny of This Sort
Regarded as a Victory by the
Cook AdherentS.

The attorneys for Porter S. Cook won
the preliminary sl1irmish in the con-
test case this morning when the court
decided that the testimony about dis
pensing liquor and cigars may be in
troduced as evidence in the case.
The session this forenoon, and in fact
since the contest was opened, was
series OF legal wrangIes. The attorneys
for Mr.. Kepley started the matter at
the outset by fling the motion to keep
the evidence about liquor out of the
case. AS soon as that motion was dis
posed of Attorney Ragan was ready
with another motion to make the petit
ton more definite and certain
L. S. Ferry was on his feet at once.
1--WE want to object to the filing of any
more motions. 1t is an old rule OF law
that when a demurrer has been filed and
disposed of that it acts as a par 10
any further motions. This rule was
made to prevent attorneys from frit-
tering away the time of court and 1t
seems to me that is what the attorneys
for Mr.. Kepley are trying to do" Judge
Ferry was armed with a number of
authorities and he read them.
Attorney Hagan said: we have
right to know who furnished the liquor
if any was furnished as charged 1t is
manifestly unfair to say that liquor was
furnished and then not tell to whom it
furnished, or that some one was
bribed without telling who was bribed-
We want to know who these parties are
and I think that we are entitled TO
know
Judge Ferry said: I'VE stand pure
ly upon technical grounds. They made
the mistake and they have to stand by
it. 1t is not our fault that they have
not fled this motion before" "
After a consultation, Judge DOlman
said: The court is of the opinion that
it has some discretion in this matter
and in the furtherance of justice we
viii the objection and allow
the motion to be fled.
Then the question as to whether or
not the motion was well taken and
whether or not the attorneys for Mr..
Cook would be required to state to
whom the liquor and bribes were given
was argued.
After Attorney Hagan had renewed
his statements that Mr. Kepley was en-
titled to know to whom the liquor was
given, Attorney DOran said: I do not |
believe that it is necessary for US to
state who received the bribes Mr..
Kepley knows who was bribed and who
received liquor and that is all that IS
necessary"
G. c. Clemens answered Mr.. Doran
in a long speech. He said that it was
a settled principle of law that a
man must know who his accusers are.
This is a serious thing" said he
They have charged Mr. kepley with
crimes that would send him to the pen
itentiary if true. It may be that some
villain has perjured himself in this
matter anu lifdl lll1S Is IiOl Il uG dl diA
and we are entitled to know who the
man is that made the charges. These |
lawyers know who these men are and
they should be made to tell, so that we
may refute the charges.
Mr.. DOran retOrted: I'VE are not |
trying Kepley for any crime now and
I do not know whether or not he will |
be tried. This is not a criminal action
1t is an action for an office or prop
erty and 1 do not think that we should |
be required to state who these men are |
that have been bribed."
There was another hurried cOnSulta- |
ton and Judge DOlman then said that |
he had a statement to make We be !
heve'' said he, that any court has the !
right to decide in the interest of jus !
tice what pleadings may be admitted
and it was in the furtherance of JUS !
tice that we decided to allow this mo-
tion to be filed and for the same reason |
we will now allow the motion and re-
quire the contestee to make his answer |
more definite and certain" This was |
turning the tables and the attorneys |
for Mr.. Kepley looked pleased.
Attorney DOran suggested that the |
court should go with the count of |
the ballots and allow them to amend |
their answer within a certain specified |
time 1t was agreed that the answer |
should be amended before tomorrow |
morning and the reply will then be
filed.
Then there was more legal slxirnish-
ing Attorney w F. Schoch took the |
floor in Mr.. Cooks behalf and objected |
to the Introduction OF any testimony.
He said that the petition filed by Mr. |
Kepley's attorneys was faulty because |
it does not state that KepIey claims |
that he was elected sheriff. He read
some authorities in support of his po-
sitiOn and then Mr.. Hagan replied He
read the petition and from the statutes
of Kansas to prove that the petition
was q good one.
The court overruled the objection and |
another point was won by Mr. Keplev.
Then short recess was taken while |
the attorneys wrote out an agreed |
statement of facts These were placed |
in the records. They are of no conse- |
quence and simply admit that both men
are citizens of Kansas and that they |
were candidates for sheriff and that on /
the face of the returns Mr.. Cook was
shown to have been elected.
County Clerk McCabe was then in
structed to bring up the ballots and
this called for another objection on the
part of Mr. Cooks attorneys.
w F. Schoch objected to the ballots
being counted because it was not shown
that they had not been tampered WITH
This necessitated placing County Clerk
McCabe on the stand He TESTIFIED that
he had kept the ballots in his vault
Mr.. Schoch especially inquired Whetner
or not the tanitors had the com binatiop