The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-06-09
HITS The OCTOPUS
Express Company License IN
Topeka Stands.
Supreme Court UphOlds the
Ordinance Today.
TWO DO NOT AGREE.
Chief Justice Johnston aud
Justice Burch Dissent.
Stock Yards Law Upheld by the
Court.

Topeka has won its fight for the right
to collect a license tax from the ex-
press companies doing business in To-
peka. according to the decision rendered
by the supreme court of Kansas this
morning in the case Of the city Of To-
peka vs.. George w. Jones.
The opinion in the case is written
by Justice Clark A. Smith. Chief JUS
tice Johnston and Justice R. A. Burch
dissent The court therefore stood 8
to ? in favor Of the city.
Jones Is the Topeka agent OF the
United States Express company. The
4 city passed an ordinance Ievyfng- a IL
cense tax of 800 per year upon all ex-
press companies. All of the companies
united in a refusal to pay the license.
and to make a test case, the city had
Jones arrested under the provisions OF
/ the ordinance, and fined for refusing
4 to pay the license. Jones appealed to
! the district court where he was beaten.
and then to the supreme court. which
affirms the decision of the district court
/ The opinion says:
1T is Just and equitable that the ex-
press agency in question should, with
many other avocations, bear some por-
ton of the municipal expenses which
are incurred for their benefit as well
as for the benefit of the property own
ers, and it is not equitable that such
!
perty owners alone"
The dissenting opinion says:
Authority to tax this business must
I be found in the statute or it does not
exist, and the authority granted must
/ be as extensive as the ordinance pro-
viding for the tax, or the ordinance Is
4 invalid. The statute provides for a tax
| upon those businesses only which are
conducted within the limits of the
! city If the first and last acts inher-
entity necessary to be performed in the
carriage of a parcel or express matter
occur in different cities, the transae-
ton is not a transaction occurring
within the limits of either one" The
dissenting opinion is written by Judge
Burch.
stock Yards Law Sustained.
In an important decision handed
down today in the case of J. w Rat
cliffe versus the Wichita Union Stock
! Yards company. the supreme court
sustains the validity of the state law
regulating the charges to be made by
stock yards companies
The Wichita Union stock yards
claimed to be exempt from the state
law because it was a purely private
concern. Chief Justice Johnston says
in his opinion:
Many kinds of business carried on
! without special franchises or privileges
are treated as public in character. and
have therefore been subjected to leg
islative control Public necessity and
| eral grounds upon which the right to
legislative control is based rather than
! that q special privilege has been con
ferred in consideration of which public
| control is conceded or required.
On the question as to whether the
schedule of rates fixed by the statute
are in violation of the federal consti-
tuition, the court holds that the answer
does not show such to be the case On
the question of how far the legislature
| may go in limiting the compensation
which corporations engaged in bust
ness clothed with public interest may
| charge, the court says that such a
question is not raised by the record.
| The decision of the lower court
which was against RatcIffe, is re-
versed.
williams Wins Libel Case.
A b williams of H.aoette county
who was convicted in the lower court
of criminal libel. secured a reversal Of
| his case on the ground that the court
gave improper Instructions. and told
the jury that certain things were libel
lous which in fact were not HbellOus.
Williams, alleged offense consisted
in the publication of a circular headed
with the word "Buncoed! in big let
ters. The circular was dated Parsons
! June Is, 1905, and charged that the
Farmers Alliance Insurance company
! of Mcpherson was engaging in inn
/ proper and fraudulent practices, and
4 vfctfmizing farm ers residing near Par
]
and the Farmers Alliance Insurance
Company promptly brought suit for
| criminal libel The lower court found
williams guilty. The case viii now
! be given new trial.
Court Defines Sunstroke.
The supreme court today decided
that a sunstroke does not have to be
caused by the sun, but may result from
! exposure TO any kind of heat This in
/ teresting question arose in the case OF
/ Tr1z
tinental Casualty company johnson
! was a fue welder employed BY the
4 Santa Fe at Newton. He was over
I come by heat while at work, and was
sick for year afterwards. His acct
! dent policy provided for a IS a week
I benefit for sickness, and Johnson sued
1 to recover. The lower court gave him
| a Judgment on the ground that his
policy protected him from Sunstroke-
! The supreme court sustains this con-
! tention though there is nothing to
show that johnson was working in the
| sun when overcome. A large number
! of definitions of the word sunstroke are
1 given to show that it sometimes ap-
| plies to heat prostratons. The court
/ says:
| 'sunstroke' should always mean a dis
order caused by the sun than that
( 1unacy' shall only denote a disorder
due to the influence of the moon"
Sustains Assistant Attorney General.
There has been some question of late
as to the validity of the law providing
for the appointment of assistant at
! torneys generals. The court this morn
ling sustained that law in an opinion IN
the case Of the State VS. M. A. Brooks
from Wilson county This prosecution
was commenced by an assistant attor-
ney general, and Wilson'S attorney
4 claimed that the law was invalid be-
cause the title of the Office does not
cover the provisions of the act. The
L.