The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-04-15
ARE ON THE RUN.
officers Can't Find Liquor
Dealers at Wichita.
Mahan Company, Wholesalers,
Get Out of State.
SHERIFF IN DOUBT.
Telegraphs Attorney General
Jackson for Instructions.
Sheriff WiIkersOn OH Hunt for
Topeka Wholesalers.

''Mahan outfit has skipped. Can't get
personal service. Will service on resi-
dence do. r. COGSDELL, Sheriff.
The above telegram from Wichita
shows one of the effects of the campaign
against the breweries and wholesale
liquor dealers. 1t was received this
morning by the attorney general of
Kansas in reply to the summons. in
junction order, and notice on application
for receiver which were sent to Wichita
Saturday night.
1t is understood that the Mahan COM
pany, which is a wholesale liquor con-
Germ chartered under the laws or Arl-
zona, employed a force of 80 men all
day Sunday packing up and putting on
the cars their 100000 stock of liquors.
The entire outfit, bag and baggage,
moved to Oklahoma
In reply to the telegram from the
sheriff of Sedgwick county, the follow
ing message was sent: Residence SER
vice on corporation not good. If Off
GERS or managing agents can not be
employe by you found actually engaged
in business there. Put deputy at their
warehouse and serve on first employe
who shows up. Residence service on
other defendants will be valid
The papers in the Mahan case were
as it was learned that the Mahan COM
pany was expecting to leave the state
If possible before service could be made
On Sunday, the attorney general and
his assistants worked most of the day
preparing the papers in the ten other
cases. These papers were signed up
in the supreme court this morning, and
went out on the first mails.
Sheriff Wilkerson received his papers
for service about IL o'clock this morning
CT IDENTITIES
locate the parties mentioned. The fol-
lowing papers were placed in Mr.. VIII
kerson's hands for service:
Helms Brewing company, by c. w.
Curtis, agent.
Schlitz Brewing company, by C. w.
Pabst Brewing company, by C. w.
Curtis, agent.
Val Blatz Brewing company, by H
Robinovitz and Robert Kneisler
agents.
Rochester Brewing company by H.
S. Anderson, agent.
LeavenwOrth Is Excited.
Frank Ryan, member of the state
railroad commission, arrived in To-
pel<a this morning from Leavenworth.
He says: People over in Leavenworth
are standing on their heads about this
business. There is a lot of excitement.
1 haven't heard that any of the places
have been closing up or moving away,
u.
and they think there is going to be
Eomething doing"
The people in the attorney generals
office are much gratified at the action
of the supreme court Saturday in
granting the injunction, and sustain
ing the action of the attorney general
in bringing the quo warranto suits.
They believe that the immediate eff
fects of the proceedings will be great,
even though the legal proceedings may
h fcr
ure that the attitude of the supreme
court and the attorney general will
spur the county attorneys and sher-
ifs to action, and will result at once
In the closing up of a great many sa-
looms and joints by local officers An
active fight of this kind also wins a
lot of popular support which don't
come cut from under cover under or
binary conditions.
The fact that the fight On the liquor
business has broken out in a new place
Is not causing the attorney general to
weaken in his fight at other places
along the line The briefs on behalf
Of the state in the cases against the
city of Leavenworth and Peter Ever
hardy, mayor, were filed this morning
IN the supreme court. These are the
buster cases. in which the attorneys
for the city, and for the mayor ad-
nitted all the charges Of the state and
are trying to get their clients out on
egal propositions. The brief in the
1NSTHdTQy case Is less Jhan TWO pages
n length. 1t starts off thus:
THE principal contention of the de-
endant in this case is that the section
II the prohibitory law providing for a
forfeiture of the office of any officer
Who violated his duty under such act
s unconstitutional. The contention is
hat the title of the act is not broad
nough to cover this provision. In the
rgument, the counsel for the defend
mt says that it is an attempt on the
,art of the state to mingle provisions
f the evil code of procedure with
PROVISIONS of a criminal statute. After
careful examination of the defend
It's brief, and of all the authorities
tied. we are compelled to admit that
We find little or no ground for this con-
entfon.'
In the case against the city of Leav-
nworth, the only proposition consider
d is whether the Judgment rendered
sainst the city of Leavenworth in
SS7 in a similar action is a bar to
he present suit The brief is three
nd cne-lalf pages in length.