The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-03-10

court by securing a reversal OF the de-
cision Of the lower court in his suit
against J. A. Smith and H. NJ. Brown,
who now hold title to Mrs. News prop
erty
The claim is made that Mrs. New
decided her property to her lawyer at
the time of her trial under a misrepre-
sentation of facts, and that the attOr-
ney decided the property to Smith and
Brown. r. H. GlOgston was appointed
as trustee for Mrs. New, and is trying
to regain possession of the property.
In the lower court Clogstont was
beaten on the ground that his petition
was not properly drawn. The supreme
court holds that the petition, while
containing surplusage, is valid, and the
case will come up for trial in the lower
court on its merits.
LuIing Wins His Case.
Insurance Commissioner c. H LuI-
ing scored an important victory IN the
case involving the right Of the Wichita
Mutual Burial association to carry on
it's business in the state Of Kansas
without complying with the insurance
laws of the state. Mr. Luling held
that the company was subject to the
same fees and supervision that all
other insurance organizations. The
lower court held against Mr.. Luling.
The supreme court reverses this de-
cision. The court says:
I'VE conclude that the business
designated to be transacted under the
plan of the Wichita Mutual Burial as
ISOLATION is plain, ordinary Insurance.
to each member above 10 years of age
that which is equivalent to 500 in
cash, payable al the death of the mem
Der, to whoever would otherwise de-
fray the burial expenses of such de-
cedent."
This will serve to put under the
Jurisdiction of the state insurance de-
partment large number of burial as
sociations doing business in the state
of Kansas.
JOintists Lose Their Case.
The court sustains the Trego. county
district court in its decision of the
liquor case in which J. O. THOMPSON
was defendant. The suit. however, Is
against A. B. Jones and w H Swig-
gett, the bondsmen for Thomp.Sn
Thompson was charged with selling
liquor in the town of Collyer. When the
case came on for trial, the county attor-
ney was Civ en- leaEe to file an amended
petition, reetifying some errors in the
former petition. Thompson refused to
I answer to the amended petition, and the
court ordered his bond forfeited Ac-
ton was brought upon the forfeited
recognizance, and judgment rendered
against the bondsmen. They appeal 10
supreme court but Tie court holds that
the TregO county court was within its
rights in ordering the forfeiture of the
bond
VeIocipede Case Bexersed.
In a decision in the well known John
son county case of E. Hurdle against
the Missouri Pacific, the supreme court
holds that even though a man has no
legal right to use q railroad yelocipede
on the tracks of a railroad company,
the engineer of a train approaching the
velocipede must give warning of his ap-
proach.
In the case against the Missouri Pa
j Ia I-f r7sg
by a train while he NS6s riding on a
velocipeds The evidence showed that
the engineer of the train could have
seen the veIocipede for distance of 500
feet but that he did not sound any
warning signal. The lower court how
ever, sustained the railroad company :
demurrer on the ground that Hurdle
had no right to run his velocipede on
the track. The case will not go back
to Johnson county for further proceed
INKS.
Santa Fe Loses a Case.
In case very similar to that of To-
peka vs.. Dwyer, the supreme court
holds that the Santa Fe Railroad com
pany can not recover taxes which it
has paid to the city of EmpOria for It's
property located in Ruggles' addition.
The Santa Fe claimed that the Ordin-
ance which purported to take RuggleS'
addition into the city is invalid. The
court sustains the lower court, and
finds that even though the ordinance
may have been defective, yet the city
Of Emporia has been collecting taxes on
the Ruggles addition property for Is
years and exercised municipal authority
in that territory, and that the ordinance
furnished sufficient color in law for
their action.
No Rehearing for Sweet.
The motion for rehearing in the case
of T. B. Sweet vs.. the Montpelier Saw
ings bank was denied this morning Mr..
Sweet was unsuccessful in his appeal.
Supreme Court Decisions.
The following opinions were handed
JOHNSTON. c. ].
Mrs H T. Haines VS.. e. c. Good
lander; error from Bourbon county.
Affirmed.
Fred samp ct al. vs.. s. H Braden,
ty. Proceeding in error dismissed.
Henry Kruse VS.. VIM. G. Fairchild;
error from xiowa county. Affirmed.
GREENE, J.
The Sons and Daughters of Justice
vs.. Laura. E. Swift ct al: error from
/ Montgomery county. Proceeding in
error dismissed.
/ JOS. Cuilison vs. Amanda Cullison:
error from Stafford county Reversed
Rosannah Zibold ct al VS.. Ruth
Reneer; error from Atchison county.
/ Affirmed.
BURCH. J..
| Chas. z. Gibson vs. Solomon John
son; error from Rawlins county. Re-
versed and remanded.
J. S. Wagner VS.. A. r. & S. F. Ry.
! Co.; error from Kingman county. Pro-
ceeding in error dismissed.
! Sarah E Wilkins vs.. Barney Lee,
Jr., ct al; error from Atchison county.
Affirmed.
MASON. J.
Geo. NJ. Edwards vs.. Josie N. Sour
beer; error from Meade county. Re-
versed and remanded for further pro-
ceedings.
St L. & S F. Rid. Co vs. NJ. H. Nor
risOn; error from Butler county. Re
versed and remanded for further pro-
| ceedings.
F. E Grain vs.. RenviIIe State bank:
error from Franklin county. Affirmed.
Sarah E. Wisner vs.. Board OF Com