The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-10-11
Settles Controversy Over Raised
PrOmissOry Note.
MOORE CROWD LOSES.
Dissenters in knights and
Ladies Of Security Defeated.
VIM. w. Pipes Must Serve PEN
itentiary Sentence.

July. Probably the most lII-jOt tam
general decision among them IS one
holding that when a promissory note
has been altered and then sold to an IN
nocent party. the purchaser cannot re
cover in excess of the amount for Whlch
It was originally given. This IS contrary
TO what some other courts nave held-
Carl Wangerin gave note Tor soO 70
q man by the name of McNas-ly. II
was on a printed blank and there was
room for McNaspy to raise it to $loO Dy
inserting a figure Il before the o.
on the scroll and writing in 100 and
before the CO. McNasDy did so ana
then sold the note to the Bank of Her
ington for the full amount OF lts ap-
parent face.
Wangerin refused to pay it when ne
learned what had been done and the
bank sued for the full amount. A num-
Der of courts have held that an 'nho-
cent holder can recover IN case oL
that kind because the person giving
the note should be careful to guard
against the possibility of a forgery OF
that nature The lower court held Tor
Wangerin, however. and now the su-
preme court affirms that decision II
turns out that the bank cannot even
collect the $50 for which the note was
originally given, because it waited until
the statute of limitations had run before
beginning an action for its recovery.
The LITIGATION between Ed G. Moore
and the Knights and Ladies of Security
was brought to an end by the supreme
court today handing down a decision
against Moore. Moore and several 9TH
ers about three years ago started
an insurrection in the order and issued
a circular charging the officers with
gross mismanagement. This was IN VI
olation of the bylaws and Moore affer
due proceedings was suspended by the
executive committee. He brought suit
IN the Shawnee county district court TO
compel his reinstatement, alleging that
the executive committee had no iuris-
dictiOn over his case. as it would be sit
ting in a matter in which the members
OF the committee were personally inter
ested. The district court found against
Moore and now the supreme court up
holds that decision. In the opinion thef
court says: "The bylaws provide abund-
ant means by which he might have pre-
sented and had investigated the
charges which he made. by other means
than those he used. Instead of oursu-
ing these he chose to pursue others
which were obnoxious to the bylaws OF
the order. We think the executive com
mittee had n clear right to inquire into
these unauthorized proceedings. 1t was
not investigating the truth or falsity OF
the charges made by the plaintiff in err
ror. Their truth was not a justification
for him. If he desired an investigation
he must follow the law. NOT nullify it."
A case of Importance just now during
IQe SetSOn LOT DIillll3 lIt tlllCtcil D1l-
lots IS that in which H. r. Honey, editor
of the Mankato Advocate. is sued by
the county commissioners for the return
OF an Overpayment for printing the Oth-
cial ballots in that county in 1898 There
we're six columns on the ballot and un
der the law Mr.. Honey was entitled to
S13 for each thousand ballots and each
fraction thereof. The ballots have to
be printed by townships, and Honey
charged in the same way Some of the
townships used only $50 ballots, but he
charged S13 for each township using less
than a thousand ballots, and for three
townships which used 1150 ballots each
he charged S26 each, making a total oe
1884 for the whole county which he col
lccted. Then the county commissioners
afterwards figured that he ought to have
taken the total of all ballots printed, H.
200, and charged for the whole lump. If
he had done this his bill would have
amounted to 1864, and the commissioners
brought suit for the return of the ex-
cess payment. The district court gave
judgment against Honey, and he ap-
peaied to the supreme court, but the su-
prene court today decided against him
This means that printers must take the
total amount of ballots printed in
county and make out their bills on that
basis and not on the township basis.
William Warden Pipes. who was SEN
fenced to the penitentiary from Ellis
comfy for k.-e murder of David Leahy
about two Years ago, will not get a new
trial, according to decision Of the su-
preune court Pipes was a Young man
who lived in Graham county. He went
over to Hays City to celebration, but
as it was too quiet there he and some
compa Mons went to Ellis and got drunk
David Leahy was a Joint keeper They
went to Leahy's Joint, got into a row,
and when it was over Leahy had been
killed. Pipes was arrested and convicted
of murder in the second degree. although
he set W the plea of Self-Gefense and
Introduced fNct TnrnnU fO chpV- 6o
had good reputation in Graham coun-
ty where he lived He was first arrest
sd and had his preliminary examinatiO
under tt-e name Ward Pipes" and his
attorneys argued that it was therefore
faulty, as this was not the name under
whfch he was afterwards tried But
the supreme court holds differently and
also holds that the instructions of the
trial court With reference to self defense
were proper. The supreme court saws:
1.-The name Ward Pipes, by which he
was designated in the preliminary pro-
ceedings, aDears to have been the one
used by his own witnesses when speak
ing Of him, and by his counsel when re-
ferring to lim during the trial If the
name used in the proceedings is the one
by which he IS generally known it is or
dinar:ly sufficient, and certainlv No
prejudice was suffered bv him becat1se
Of the use of the abbreviated name by
which he was generally known. in the
preliminary proceedings, instead of his
full name under witch the later pro
ceedings were instituted
Edward B. Justus, an Oklahoma con
vict in the Kansas penitentiary viii
not be released on a writ Of habeas
corpus by the supreme court. Justus
was sent to the penitentiary from Kay
county, Okla He claims that under the
Oklahoma law a court Is compelled t.
grant a change of venue on the fling OF
affdavits by two disinterested persons
stating that the aceuser cannot secure
an impartial trial in that court. He