The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-10-07


tain as to the character of such i'm
provement must be taken as mere ad-
yisory suggestions which may or may
not be followed
Brick Company Win.
Following its decisions in certain
damage suits against railroad com
panies, the court holds that Della A.
Phillips of Douglas county can not re-
cover a verdict against the Lawrence
Nitrif1ed Brick company for damages
and annoyance sustained from smoke
from the brick plant. This is an at
hrmation of the judgment of the
Douglas county court.
The case was one of great impor-
lance, because had the lower court
been reversed, it might have resulted
in the destruction of the business Of
the Lawrence Vitrified Brick com
pany.
The court finds that there was no
improper method used in the manu-
facture of the brick; that the an
noyance of which the complainant
speaks can not be avoided f'While
some discomfOrts and inconvenience
result from the operation of the plant.
which supports the finding that it is
not so serious and substantial as to re-
quire the abandonment of the enter
prise or the recovery of damages"
Liquor Seller Can Insure.
In the case of the grand lodge of
of the state of Kansas against Jane
Haddock which was appealed from
Wyandotte county, the supreme cOuEt
today held that q frateTnal insurance
order can not by the adoption of a by
law declaring that no person shall be
admitted or retained as a member who
is engaged in the sale of intoxicating
liquors, make void the beneficiary
certificate of such a member unless
special action is taken in his case
John Haddock became a member of
the lodge in Kansas in 1880. He was
then engaged in the business of selling
liquor. He removed to Missouri and
continued in the same business. In
1889 the grand lodge adopted by
law providing that persons engaged in
the business of selling Intoxicating
liquors as a beverage should not be re-
tanned as members.
The court holds that this bylaw was
not self operative and the decision Of
the lower court allowing her $4,000
insurance was affirmed
Alien Land Case.
The case of s. H. and Julius Sparks
against AdOlph BOdensick is of inter-
est at this time because of its bearing
on the alien land law suit which the
attorney general has instituted. S. H.
and Julius Sparks were among the
heirs of c. H. Spradau, who died in
COWley county in 1878. The SparkseS
were the only relatives of Spradau who
tiVes being natives of Germany. BOden-
sick, who WAS one of the German
relatives, secured possession of the
property of the deceased Spradau
through an action in the district court
of Cowley county The case was ap-
pealed on the theory that the common
law that aliens cannot inherit real
estate in Kansas was in force at the
time of Sprddau's death and the title
therefore uasSed to the SparkSeS who
We're his only American kinsmen-
The court holds in affirming the
judgment of the district court that
Bodensick should inherit the property
under a provision of the bill of rights
which provides that no distinction shall
ever be made between citizens and
aliens in reference to the descent OF
property.
Pool and Billiards the Same.
The supreme court today decided
that so far as the law is concerned
there is no difference between the
games of billiards aud pool. The de-
cision is the OutgrOWth Of case APP
pealed from SedgWick county in which
the city of Clearwater prosecutes M s.
Bowman for maintaining a public pool
table. An ordinance of the city of
/ Clearwater prohibits the maintenance
Of public billiard table Bowman
maintained pool table and in his de-
tense contended that the ordinance did
not apply to his case In writing the
opinion. Justice Mason says:
Even at the present time, the word
billiard table is employed as a generic
term including the form adapted to
/ PLAYING pool This is illustrated by the
definition of pool in the Century die
/ tionary, as "A game played on a billiard
table with six pockets by two or more
persons.
Supreme Court Decisions.
The following opinions were handed
down by the SQUIRT;
JOHNSTON. c. J.
W. c. Edwards vs.. ]. A. Hartshorn:
error from Harper county. Affirmed.
Frank Timma ct al vs.. E. Y. Tim
MAJ error from Graham county. At
| firmed.
0. P Ergenbright VS.. j. S. Hender-
son ct al; error nom Montgomery
county. Reversed and remanded fol-
further proceedings.
Peter A. Kurt vs.. Robert Lanyon;
error from Allen county. Affirmed
BURCH, J.
Robert Weir ct al VS.. Oliver Bagby
trustee ct al; error from Wyandotte
district court Affirmed.
John 7. Stewart vs.. H. F. Smith: err
ror from Sumner county. Modified.
MASON, J.
B. B. Clark vs.. the Toronto Bank
ct al; error from Woodson county. At
fiTned.
S. n. Sparks ct. al vs.. -Adolph Fried
rich Heinrich Bodensick ct al; error
from CowIey county. Affirmed.
The Grand Lodge of the Ancient Or
der of United Workmep VS.. Jane Had
dock; error from WyandOtte district
court. Affirmed.
The state of Kansas VS.. J. F. Os-
walt; appeal from Decatur county. At
firmed-
city of Clearwater vs.. NJ. S. Bow
man; appeal from Sedgwick county
Affirmed.
SMITH, J.
State OF Kansas VS.. Ed Shaw; ap-
peal from Kingman county. Affirmed
State of Kansas vs.. c. c. Kesner,
appeal from Coffey county. Affirmed
State of Kansas VS.. Lackey and
Shanlzs; appeal from Marion county
Affirmed.
PORTER. J.
A T. & S. f. Ry. Co. VS.. Board OF
] l.n1l1atv Commissioners of LYON cOun-