The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-08-16
DAY READ Them.
Topeka Man Solved Dead Stem
ographer's Notes.
Made Transcript of Evidence for
anHAppeaI.
Il
QUESTION is RAISED.
Claimed That the Record Con-
tains Many Mistakes.
Court, However, Puts His 0. X.
on Work.

When A T. Young, stenographer for
the district court in Dickinson county
died, it left litigation in bad shape in
that county, and there was fear for
some time that no one would be able 10
transcribe his stenographic notes, and
that it would therefore be Impossible to
secure transcripts of the evidence nee
essary for the appeal OF many import
ant cases.
1t apepars that at least a man has
been found who could at least make
good strong effort at transcribing the
stenographic note books of the dead
stenographer. The man is William Day
Of Topeka. and a case was fled in the
supreme court today from the Dickin
son county court which is the first fruit
of Mr.. Days work as a transcriber
The case is that of the Union Pacific
railway, plaintiff in error, against Sam
uel Mccullough and his wife. Florence
Mccullough. It is damage suit in
which the McCulloughs secured $3.50
for the killing of their Is year old son.
The suit was brought July 81, 1904,
and the amount of damages claimed was
$4,000. It was claimed that Purnell W.
Mccullough, the Is year old son, went to
solomon on April l6 with wagon load
VI SOA L. III ClOSSln6 luG II dNhS u
the Union Pacific on Chestnut street,
he was unable to see the track for any
distance owing to the fact that string
Of freight cars was standing on the
siding. The Oncoming passenger train
struck his wagon, and he was hurled 90
feet. His skull was crushed and his
spine dislocated. He died in a few
hours. G. E. Rugh and David Overmyer
were his attorneys.
The case was tried before Judge 0.
L. Moore, and the jury brought in a
verdict for the boys father and mother
in the sum of $3.50. Shortly after the
trial, the stenographer died, leaving his
notes untranslated-
At the end of the transcript of the
record made by William Day. he makes
affidavit that he could read .Young's
notes without any difficulty, and that
the transcript is true and correct.
But the attorneys for Mr.. and MIS-.
Mccullough were disposed to challenge
this statement, and they have gone
through the record and made large
number of changes in the testimony as
prepared by Day. They also filed for
nal objection with Judge Moore to the
settling of the case made, on the ground
that the transcript is so full Of fnaccur-
acies that it is valueless as a matter Of
record. Judge Moore, however, held
that it was the best that could be had,
and that the railroad company should
not be deprived of its right to appeal,
SO he signed the record.
Salina Land Case Filed.
Another important Union Pacific
railway case from Saline county was
also appealed today.
This controversy started back in
August, 1902. when the Union Pacific
proceeded to fence up a piece of land
200 feet wide on each side of their
right of way, in the farm owned by
Morris Harris, Ralph Harris, Anna H.
Arnett and Nellie M Daniels. which
farm lies in the suburbs of Salina-
otx Of a a oh cr1ff
against the Union Pacific to compel the
road to restore the land, tear down the
fence. and pay $1,000 damages.
The evidence showed that the land
in question had been settled by Bern
hardt Blou on April 2, 1851. Blou
MED has preelnptaon statement, out
filed no final proofs. In July, 1852,
the government gave to the Union Pa
cific a strip of land zoo feet on each
side of the line it was then about to
build through Kansas. The govern
ment also withdrew from settlement
all land situated zoo feet on either
side Of the proposed track. When the
railroad reached Blou's farm, they did
not apparently attempt to claim the
right to cross his land, but paid him
for right of way.
In 1865. 1t appears that Blou dis
covered that he had never perfected
his preemption title to the farm he had
been occupying and improving, and so
he proceeded to change his claim to
conform with the terms of the home
stead act Of 1862. In 1870 he made
final proofs under the homestead act,
and in 1872 secured his patent to the
land.
The fact that Blou changed his plan
for securing title to the land has given
the railroad company the opportunity
to claim that he really had no title or
claim on the land until after 1t had
been Withdrawn from settlement and
was no longer subject to homestead
entry.
Not until August, 1902, did the rail-
road company attempt to exercise any
claim to the 400 feet strip through the
old Blou farm, which had since passed
into the hands of the Harrises The
farm consists Of a portion of section 12,
township 4. range 8 west of the sixth
p. M, and is now in the outskirts of
Salina where the Union Pacific is de-
sirous Of locating sidetracks and ter
minal buildings.
The case was tried before Judge
Rees. and the most of the controversy
was set forth in an agreed statement
OF facts. Judge Rees decided the case
for the Harris family. and not only
gave them the land. but allowed them
$40 damages and costs.
ENGLIsHMAN's COSTLY HISS.