The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-07-08
WAS IT A CLUB.
Mohawk Organization Question
ed by County Attorney.
Tries to Prove That 1t Was for
Drinking Only.
RIGHT OF PROPERTY.
Purpose to Find Out if It Is
Contraband.
Several Witnesses Tell What
They Saw
RIGHT ! OF PROPERTY.

testimony was given today before
Judge Dana in the district court in lie
case brought by the state against
Thomas Mooney as to the rights to the
property taken by J. M. Wilkerson, tla
sheriff, in the raid on the Mohawk club
rooms at No. Ill East Third street in
March last. Mooney and a helper,
Samuel Van Horn, were arrested IN
this raid and charged with selling Ii
quor in violation of the terms of The
prohibitorys law. Their trial on this
failed to reach. an agreement on YER
dict so the charge is still against them
and in all likelihood they will be tried
again at the September term of he
county authorities that the Mohawk
club was in reality a drinking resort
conducted by Tom Mooney and in his
interests alone.
Wilkerson seized a number of tables
and chairs in the rooms as well as some
ice boxes, quantity of liquor and beer
an few other appurtenances generally
used in a place where Intoxicating IL
quors are dispensed. Under the prohibi-
tory law all property used in the lis
pensation of liquor unlawfully IS sub
ject to seizure and destruction by the
sheriff and the case which was up be-
fore Judge Dana today was as to
whether or NOT the property in ques-
ton had been used for the purpose of
trafficking in liquor in contravention to
jected to destruction at the hands of
the sheriff.
H. H. Andis, a grocer. Michael
Heery, Jacob Kline, and N. H. Wolf,
were called by Otis Hungates attorney
far Mooney, to give testimony as to the
ownership of the property that had
been seized. Each of them testified
along the line that the Mohawk club
was a bona fide social organization, to
the rooms of which none other than
he a.
sisted that the property which had
been seized belonged TO the members
of the club. Mr.. Andis expressed the
opinion that he owned one-two hun
dredth interest in the tables and chairs
and other things which were seized be-
cause there were two hundred mem
bers in the club, and this property had
been bought by them.
Under rigorous cross examination by
Mr. Schenck, the county attorney, the
witnesses admitted that the tables and
chairs and other things seized in the
raid had been used in the dispensation
of liquors but they insisted that the
Mohawk club was a social organfza-
ton and its rooms were used for other
purposes than that of drinking. ~
Mr.. Heery owns the building where
the. Mohawk club had its rooms and
he testified that he rented these
rent for them from him. He under
stood that Mr. Mooney was acting for
the club in this matter. Each witness
admitted to having seen beer served at
the tables and drank by men sitting in
the chairs.
In his efforts to substantiate the con-
tention that the Mohawk club was moth
ing but drinking resort run by Tom
Mooney, Mr.. Schenck spoke of an ''un-
written law that has not developed be-
fore in criminal prosecutions. He was
questioning Mr.. Andis about what the
tables and chairs were used for, and
got admissions that people sat in the
chairs and drank liquor which was
served on the tables Me. Andis said
that the tables were also used for card
playing and Mr.. Schenck then went on
with line of inquiry as to whether or
not the card playing was for drinks. Mr..
Anois sort of lodged questions along
this line and Mr.. Schenck asked:
rs there not an unwritten law to the
effect that the man who gets beat sets
up the dFinks?''
II never heard of that law" replied
the witness. ct used to set UP the drinks
when / felt like it,
For the state Mr.. Schenck called J., w
Biggs, Sheriff Wilkerson, Sam Haynes
and George Ward as witnesses. MT
Biggs was the star witness at the orig
iral trial of Tom Mooney and gave testi-
mony similar to that given by him be-
fore to the effect that the Mohawk club
was a drinking resort run by Tom
Mooney. Mr. Wflkerson and his deputies
Mr.. Haynes and Mr.. Ward, were not
examined. it being agreed by the law
vers for the defense that the testimony
given by them at the trial OF Mooney as
to their seizure of the property IN ques-
tion should be admitted as testimony in
this case.
Mr.. Schenck and Mr.. Hungate agreed
RI submit the case to the court without
argument and Judge Dana took the
matter under Amusement and reserved