The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-05-01
HITS OUT HARD.
Judge Dana Fines JOintist $500
and Six Months.
Peter PlamOndon Had Violated
Injunction Of Court.
WAS GIVEN THE LIMIT
Klauers Found Not to Have
Violated Court Order.
The Judge Says His IniunctiOns
Must Be Respected.
WAS GIVEN THE LIMIT

A double barreled demonstration
took place this morning in the Shaw
nee county district court which viii
make both jointists. and attorneys
who prosecute them, sit up and take
notice.
On one hand the court fined Peter
Plamondon the limit, $500 and six
months in jail, for selling liquor in
contempt of court. at 900 Kansas ave-
nue. after an injunction had been
granted against him. With this drastic
punishment, Judge Dana delivered
from the bench these words in con-
nection with others: II think that
some persons have a misunderstanding
or a misconception Of what the court
means by an injunction order. Here
after the court will be extremely care
full about issuing injunctions. but if
proof is shown. they go, and they go
hard and they must be respected"
Just before the Plamondon punish
ment was assessed. George Klauer
Herman Klauer and Joe Artzer were
arraigned before the court. to answer
to a charge of contempt for selling
liquor at 526 Kansas avenue after an
injunction had been granted against
them. Frank Foster conducted the
case. The evidence was SO f1imsy, and
the prosecution continually kept re-
verting back to evidence. on which
the Klauers had been acquitted last
fall before a jury. that Judge Dana
took things in hand. and in a we'll
grounded statement established the
rule that hereafter there viii be no re-
trying of persons on contempt charges,
on evidence upon which they had al
ready been acquitted before a jury.
The Klauer case was put on, as a
violation of an injunction by selling
liquor at 526 Kansas avenue. NJ.
Snattinger testified that he owned the
building. He said that he did not
know what kind of a business was < t
ing carried on there.
Carl Lawson made the raid with
John Lucas and Judge Carver. He
said that he drank something out of
key which he thought was beer, at
Garver's direction.
Harvey Jackson stated that he had
been in the place and bought beer, but
did not know just when, in fact he
could not circumscribe the time limit
at all.
Henry Miller said he went into the
place asked for key beer but bought
nothing because only bottle beer was
to be had. He couldn't give any idea
OF the time at which he was in the
place.
Judge Carver testified that he was
present at the raid, but that all he
saw was a. couple of men standing with
empty beer glasses in their hands.
Jackson and Miller testified in the
Klauer case when they were admitted.
Repeatedly they answered questions
concerning that trial, and the evidence
given at that time. The court inter
rupted a number of times and said
that he did not care to retry any case
In that manner.
The prosecution rested after a com
plete failure to establish its case. Judge
Dana said: The court is not satisfied
with the proof. The court believes that
/ 1t has taken a reasonable and q right
ground to decline to retry a case al
ready settled by a jury. Whether the
verdict in the. case was disappoint-
ment or not has nothing to do with
/ this The court must be satisfied about
4 the proof in these cases. The court is
not satisfied that its order was violated.
The judgment IS that the defendants
are not guilty"
The Plamondon case was immediate
ly called. The defendant was not pres
ent, but his attorney waived the mat
ter. In this case" said Judge Dana,
/ 1.-The court Is satisfied with the proof.
think that there is some misunder-
standing and nisconception of what the
court means by the Injunction order.
Either the parties do not understand
/ or are Inisled by thinking that the in
| junction proceedings are in themselves
not well taken. It Is time for the de-
PENDANT to understand that the order
of the court means something The
court viii be careful about issuing in
functions. but If proof is shown they
go. and go hard. and must be respect
ed
Plamondon was then fined $500 and
six months in jail. the limit. Upon the
request Of his attorneys he viii be al
I lowed stay of execution for 30 days.
His bond was fixed at $1,000 for that
time The case viii be appealed to the
supreme court.
The action of the court this morning
win preclude any foolishness on both
| the part of jointists who do not fear
| injunctions, and also on the part OF
prosecuting attorneys who ask for in
functions when they do not have suffi-
cient proof to sustain them in trial.