The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1897-07-29

wick County District Court Which May
be Anscted-It Is Generally Believed
That the Case Will be Carried to the
Supreme Court-Wnrkmen Liable to a
Fine of Not Less Than $50 Nor Mure
Than $1,000 II He Works Over Eight
Hours.
The appellate court Of the northern
district of Kansas recently gave de-
cision on the eight-hour law. in which
they hold that an employee is the gully
party IL ne works more than eight hours.
and that he cannot recover because Of
his own wrong. The decision that fol-
lows is construed from chapter la Of the
session laws Of 1891. The law as inter-
preted by the three judges, Mahan, Nc
Elroy and Wells. it would seem, makes
i possible for the workman TO be fined
not less than $50 nor more than 1000.
AS there are something like fifty cases
OF a similar nature now pending before
the Sedgwick county district court, the
opinion as rendered is herewith given
The case which brought; out the decis-
ion was wher one Billingsly sued the
board Of commissioners OF Marshall coun-
ty- Error from district court, Marshal
county; r. B. Spillman. judge. Judg-
ment for defendant, and plaintiff. brings
error. Affirmed:
Wells, j. The only question in this
case is whether a person can contrac.
with county 10 90 certain clearly spec
ihad and described work for a certain
specified sum monthly, perform the serv-
ices, and receive pay therefor under the
contract, and then, after the expiration
o. the contract and all renewals thereof
upon showing that in the performance
OF said contract more than eight hours
Of labor a day were acquired and by him
performed, collect Of said county pay for
such excess over eight hours a day, under
the provisions of chapter ia, Laws 1891.
In the consideration of this question .et
us assume. as claimed by plaintiff in En-
ror, that the object OF this law is-First,
10 shorten the hours of labor for the en-
ployed; second, 10 give the unemployed
a better chance 10 get work,-and then
inquire how either of these objects is to
be aided by allowing one man to con-
tact 10 do day and halls work each
day, and then collect for the excess. II
seems to us that the allowance OF the
plaintiffs claim would directly tend 70 de-
feat both. II is familiar rule that
ming may be within the letter of a
statute, and yet not within the statute.
because not within its spirit or intention
Holy Trinity Church V. U. s., 143 L. S.
457, II Sup. CT. 511. But in this case
the claim of the plaintiff is not within
the letter Of the law. The law referred
20 makes it unlawful for any county or
any contractor Herewith 10 require or
permit any person 20 work more than
eight hours per day under any contract
with il, except in cases of extraordinary
emergency, as therein designated. In this
case there was no claim Of any sucn
emergency as contemplated in the excep-
ton. We are therefore presented with
this alternative: Either the plaintiff in
error violated the letter and spirit of the
law in question. and now insists on be-
ing paid for doing SO, or that chapter
does not apply to cases of this kind Each
o. these positions is equally fata. to the
plaintiffs claim. 1t is an elementary
principle of law that person can not
base cause Of action upon his own
wrong. In the case at bar, If the serv-
ices performed came within the scope Of
said chapter ia. then ii was unlawful |
for the plaintiff TO work more than eight !
hours each day, and and il was unlawful |
for the commissioners 10 allow him 10 do |
50; and he by his act violated the law, |
ard subjected the commissioners, if not |
himself, to a criminal prosecution. and |
now asks 70 profit by it. The writer OF /
this is Of the opinion that the law in /
question on-y applies TO people who work |
by the day, and not 10 those taking con- !
tracts OF certain amount of work for !
so much money. Chief Justice Horton. |
speaking for the supreme court in STATE /
V. Martindale, AZ Kan. $50, - Pac. $50. !
says: The words iaborers, workmen. /
mechanics and other persons in section /
l, C. ia. evidently do not embrace any
officer or employee for whom an annual |
salary has been specifically named and /
appropriated by the legislature. Fur /
Their, chapter ia is a penal statute. and |
must therefore be strictly construed II |
cannot be extended by construction" /
The decision Of the court below will be /
affirmed All the Judges cOncurrinp