The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-01-06
Murderer May Inherit Property
of His Victim.
ONE CLOSE DECISION.
Railroad Wins Wichita Case by
a Single Vote.
Passengers Must Keep Heads In-
side Street Cars.

It was decided this morning by the
supreme court that a murderer can in-
herit property from the person he kills.
1t is the first decision on this point
which the court has ever been called
upon to make, and it's decision seems to
be a reluctant one. 1t amounts to q
recommendation to the legislature to
change the existing law on the sub
ject.
On March IA, 1908, Kate Brandt was
murdered by her husband for the pur-
pose Of obtaining her property, and he
is now serving a hang sentence in the
penitentiary. After Brandt was arrest
ed he hired lawyer, one G. A. Bailey,
and transferred to him all his interest
in his wife's estate amounting to 81, ,000,
as pay for legal services. Mrs. Brandt's
brothers and sisters, the nearest living
blood relatives, claimed the estate on
the ground that the husbands crime
disabled him to take any part in it.
The Jewell county court decided that
the husband could inherit the property,
in spite of his crime, and the supreme
/ court affirms the decision.
The supreme court says: That anv-
/ one should be given property as a re-
suit OF his crime is abhOrrent TO the
mind OF every right-thlnking person.
/ ana there is strong reason wny the
/ lawmakers in fixing the rules of lnheri-
/ tance and prescribing punishment for
/ felon1ous homicide, should provide that
/ no person should inherit property from
! one whose life he had feloniously taken
/ 1t viii be observed, however, that the
rule OF inheritance is explicit and the
statute contains no hint that anyone is
/ to be excluded on account OF miseon-
4 duct or crime"
Shawnee Court Reversed.
The decision of the Shawnee county
/ district court in the case OF the Bennett
/ Commission company against the Tay-
/ lor Grain company was reversed. IN
/ this case the Bennett Commission COM
pany agreed to sell the Taylor Grain
company 10000 bushels of corn. A ear
of corn was delivered, and sight draft
/ drawn on the Taylor Grain company.
Through certain delays, the Taylor
4 Grain company did not pay the draft lY3-
til after business hours, when it was
found that the Bennett Commission
/ company had taken UP the draft, and
held that as the terms of the contract
had not been compiled with, they would
deliver no more corn to the Taylor
Grain company. The Taylor Grain COM
pany brought suit to compel the en-
forcement Of the contract, and the lower
court held that their claim was good
and that the Bennett company was vir-
tually escaping upon technicality. Ths
supreme court holds, however, that the
letter OF the contract can be enforced
Topeka Wins a Case.
The decision of the jury in the Andrew
! Cook damage suit against the city Of
{ Topeka was reversed. Cook secured a
! Judgment against the city for $500 on
the ground that while driving with
4 load of coal in an alley west of Low
man Hill, his wagon ran UP on
1 manure pile, upset, and broke his leg
! The supreme court holds that the fact
/ that the alley where the accident &C
Cured was not shown to be within the
| city limits is sufficient cause for re-
Versal. The attorneys for Cook did not
prove that the alley was within the city
/ limits, and the court refuses to take
| judicial notice whether it was or was
not.
One Close Decision.
By q. vote of to the court de-
1 cided that a man crossing the yards
! of a railroad company on path com
monty used by the public, who trips
and falls over semaphore wires thus
/ receiving injuries of serious character,
can not recover damages from the
railroad company
The decision is rendered IN the
/ case of Ambrose Fuller against the
Santa Fe, in which Mr.. Fuller re-
/ covered a judgment in SedgWick
/ county. He tripped over semaphore
wires and ran his face into the ties
I and rails.
justices Greene, Burch. Porter and
! Graves concur in the decision, and
/ Justices Smith and Mason and Chief
! justice johnston dissent. Inc case
has twice been reargued before the
court owing to the difference OF
4 opinion which has existed and the
! changes in the personnel of the
court.
/ The majority of the justices hold
! that it was Ful7er's business to look
out for his own safety while using the
/ path, while the dissenting justices
/ say that if the company allowed the
path to be used, it should take meas
ures to protect people using it.
Jsarnes Wins Real Estate Case.
( S. Barnes, the Topeka real estate
/ dealer, secured in the district court
/ on sale of a house for S. Stanton,
also Of Topeka. The supreme court
holds that the decision of the lower
court was correct.
Alr Stanton employed Mr.. Barnes
/ to sell his home, ana when Bfr.
Be rnes had a purchaser Staaton re-
fused to complete the deal, claiming
j that the property belonged to his
wife and he had no right to sell it.
Barnes sued for his commission.
Must Keep Ones Head IN.
E. E. Cummings, a passenger in a
! Wichita street car, secured a judg-
ment in the lower court for damages
/ riding on the car. He stuck his
| head out of the window to talk to a
/ lady and pole hit him in the back
OF the head.
The supreme court holds that
Cummings was guilty or contrfbu-
tory negligence, and does not deserve
/ any sympathy from the court or
| money from the Wichita street rail-
| way company. The lower court is
reversed.
Burnett Wins a Point.
An opinion was handed down in