The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1900-12-10
JOINTISTS WIN.
Appeal Cases Knocked Out in
District Court.
Judge Hazen Holds That Appel
late Court Decision Applies.
NO ssSTRIP" TAXATION.
Property Taken Into City Must
Not Be Taxed This Year.
Territory North of SecondStreet
Not Legally Acquired.
no ssSTRIPo TAXATION.

Judge Hazen rendered two important
decisions this morning in so far as the
city is concerned. The cases were Felt
vs.. City of Topeka. which is known as
the strip case and was flied to prevent
the city collecting taxes on the newly an
nexed territory; the other was The City
OF Topeka vs.. Frank Murphy, which IS
one of the joint cases In both cases the
decision was against the city.
The first case upon which the Judge rem
dered a decision was the case Of z. J.
Felt. ct al vs.. The City Of Topeka The
plaintiffs asked for an injunction against
the city restraining them from collecting
city tax and school tax upon their prop
erty which had been annexed to the city
last August. The plaintiffs claimed that
they had not been legally annexed and
thar their property had not been legally
assessed by the city assessor
In his decision Judge Hazen held that a
part of the property taken in the city by
the ordinances which passed the council
last August was not legally annexed. be-
cause it did not touch the city. 1t seems
that the city engineers department made
a mistake and left tract Of land forty
city limit and the properly they proposed
to annex. The Judge held that this prop
territory lying north OF second street was
not a portion of the city. but he did not
say anything about tne oalanee OF me
property annexed, which Is taken by the
city authorities TO mean that this strip
was the only part Illegally annexed.
The Judge decided that the city assessor
had not really viewed the property. but
had made his assessment from the rec
ords filed by the township assessor, which
The township officers had made their
arrangement for the school year and the
city comes in in August and attempts TO
take half of the money. This would be
an injustice and is not IN accordance with
the law which requires that the assess
ments be made before the city took in
the property. hence the city can not tax
he IJrnf
City Attorney Bird said the effect of the
decision would be that the city could not
collect the taxes for this year. but that
s.rbe stri1 Of land which was anneyed hts
an ordinance lying south OF Second street
will require another ordinance before we
can take it in. but that We can easily do
In the case of city of Topeka vs.. Frank
Murphy the judge said he had taken the
were the same and would give his deci-
sion the one case letting It apply to
The case was appealed from the police
court and was one Of the many which
ordinance
Judge Hazen's opinion was in part as
foll0wings. The questions at issue in the
case arise upon motion to quash the
complaint and also q motion 10 dismiss the
case and discharge the defendant
The case filed in the police court shows
that the defendant was charged with vio-
1ating ordinance No 2o6l, was arrested on
a warrant Tor violating the same ordi-
nance and sentenced in the police court
fQE Fl0ldIIE& EndE ordnance since IflH
trial and conviction in the police court
the court of appeals has decided that this
ordnance 206l IS void. and that decision
is binding upon the district court
The judge cited few decisions to show
that the court had only appellate 1urisdic-
ton In cases of this kind and then said:
1T appears from these authorities that
the mpIaint must charge the accused
with violating the ordinance Of the city,
and where il charges the violation OF a
particular ordinance, such as the case at
bar the defendant must pc tried under
that particular ordinance The city charg-
ed the violation Of this particular ordi-
nance and the defendant can not be tried
for violating some other ordinance of the
city.
in this case the defendant was charg-
ed, arrested and tried in the police court
for violation Of ordinance No POSI-, and
from that conviction he appealed to this
court. and must be tried under the same
held this ordinance void. the defendant
therefore Wrongful1y charged tried and
convicted and this court. having no power
or authority to try him for violation Of
any ordinance. it follows that the Defend
ant must be discharged
City Attorney Bird excepted to the de-
cision and gave notice that he would ap-
he was not satisfied with the %ecisIon Of
the court of appeals validity Of the
ordinance. This affects 10 appeal cases
R. r. Hayden, attorney for the joint
lists. asked that the other joint cases be
dismissed and Mr.. Bird objected. The
Judge said ne thought he had no right to
hold the cases over. as they were crimi-
nal cases. but said he would withhold his
opinion Of the question until tomorrow