The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-02-10
WIN CASEATLAST
Odd Fellows Beat TrOutman q
Stone in Supreme COnrt.
May Force Topeka Lawyers to
Pay Big Debt.
ELLIOTT is CLEARED.
Wellington Attorney Will Not
Be Disbarred From Practice.
Arnold Beats MOOrhead in Lyon
County Election Fight.
ELLIOTT is CLEARED.

BY decision of the supreme court this
morning. James A. Troutman and Rob
ert Stone, the lawyers who secured pos
session of the DeBoissiere estate from
the ODD Fellows. suffered their first re-
verse after a long series Of litigation fol-
lowing the contention over the estate
The supreme court holds that the
Usage county district court had no right
to strike out an amended petition filed
by the Odd Fellows in case pending
against Troutman & Stone in the Usage
county court.
The suit was brought in The lower
court by the odd Fellows to charge the
DeBCissiefe estate with a lien for an
Indebtedness of DeBOissieTe to one Sears
which had been assumed and paid by
the Odd Fellows. The claim amounted
to a number of thousand dollars ana
the odd Fellows want Iroutmdn &
stone to pay it.
Troutman * Stone managed, in the
lower court to have the amended peu-
liOn stricken out, for the reason Jndl
it contained certain matter which the
court had held, in the original petition,
was improper The supreme court SAYS;
There is reason to complain Of TINS
ruling. The motion to strike out is not
al apron late test of the suftlciency OF
e. EiLErl-AlAl6r bA RI EAyAiEA A4S-tA-'Ie- IA
ing bona fide controversy. 1t may pe
used to get rid of a frivolous amend-
ment or pleading, but the amended pc
tition is hardly open TO That opJee-
tion."
MIR. Troutman said this morning in
speaking of the decision. 1T is merely
a technical matter. and viii simply
delay the ultimate result of the SUIT a
little. We VIII have to go back TO Osa8e
county court, and try the case, that
viii DE ali"
Elliott Not Disbarred.
O. d. Elliott. the Wellington at
t0rneE against whom disbarment pro-
ceedngs have been pending in the
supreme court for some time, was by
The decision of the court today given
d clean bill of health. The charges
against him are not sustained.
The court holds that the alleged
confidential communities ton of client
which Elliott is accused of disclosing.
WAS not confidential communication,
and that the other charges of mis-
conduct. dating back thirteen years,
cannot be considered for the reason
that they were practically dropped at
one time The syllabus says that
such a charge is Eat least stale"
The charge against Elliott was
brought by Cleo ID. Brunette, form
erly ElhOtts partner Brunette him
self had been disbarred some time
ago for excessive use of intOxicants.
The evidence i'm the case which was
submitted to the court Included sew
eral big bottles said to contain whisky
spiked with opium or morphine which
BurHette claims Elliott gave him to
drink for the purpose of making him
mentally irresponsible. The court
says:
"A reading of the testimony Of the
accuser and the accused fmpresses
one with the apparent frankness and
uneFasiVeness Of the accused i'm his
answer. While the accuser i'm one part
or his answer depicts himself as being
for considerable period of time in
such condition of mind as 10 be prac-
ucally unconscious of what took Mace
ln ms presence. and unacc0untabIe
tnereiol- In another part he recites
the ninutest details of events which
ne says occurred within the same
period. and in connection with the
very acts for which the reason of his
mental condition he claims to be I'M
accountable"
The court takes this shot at E7Iliot+.
1.-The evidence shows that F7Ilio+tse
conduct in the respect charged has
9een far from exemplary. i'm fact has
'e9i 9ucH at unes as should subject
him to severe criticism Vet +be S4I
dence of successive judges before WHOM,
ne mas practised law for many wears
shows only one instance i'm which
EiuoIt mas appeared i'm court i'm snrb
conQltIoll Of intONcatiOn as to aftra ot
s-NtNittltfAA LlAEAtlD OF afIect his business
capaeltN- NO client of his unless it he
Brunette. has been produced to testif1,
Lhat his business has been neglected or
u any way suffered by reason of
Elliott's intemperance."
Arnold Wins Election Fight
The fight for the office of county
commissioner of Lyon county between
r. Moorhead and @. F. Arnold was de-
@Aded bN the supreme lin favor If
arnold thus affirming the decision of
T|l rr-H ..r. .r--
before which the case had previously
Deen tried The main point at issue ii
tAe case was the counting of the bal
lots from Americas township.
me Otuclal returns ON the tally sheet
on Amerlcus township gave Moorhead
zlS votes and Arnold 200 votes. The
contest court recOunted the ballots
and found that there were 239 VOTES
5oI Moornead and only 1877 for Arnold.
MS was a uluefence of 80 votes in
favor of MOorehead and if the re-
count had been ACCEPTED as correct If
Noutd nave elected MOOrhead bv II
EoleS I'D me district IF the returns on
the tally sheet are ia ken as correct if
gave Arnold majority of % votes
me evidence showed that fhe
Americas election board could NOT GET
the returns into the envelope provided
Tor the purpose, and so enclosed tl,a7,7
iu gunny sack which thew seu-a6 M,
When the sack was brought before the
contest court it was fastened ia a dir
terent way from what it was when fl
passed into the hands of the oo71n+,-
clerk The evidence disclosed the fact
that the combination to the vault door
was known to others besides the conn
~ clerk. and that he was absent from
town a week while the ballots were in
the vault.
The contest court decided to accent
the tally sheets as the correct returns
and disregard the ballots. and the su-
preme court sustains this view of the
case.
The court SAYS: "The proprfetv of
the courts conduct in openin~ the
case is not to be determined bv
rho result of the hearing. and
the cOntestOr really has no sub
stantial complaint to make ex-