The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-04-06

trict court to hear the case
Alexander Wins Cereal Case.
| The decision of the Shawnee county
| court in the suit of the National Ce-
real company against M. alexander IS
affirmed. This was the case in which
| M. Alexander of Topeka bought from
| a Battle Creek concern an agency to
sell breakfast food. He paid $1,000
for this right. and supposed he was
| being given the territory of Kansas
and Jackson county, Missouri. He dis
| covered later that the contract didn't
| call for Jackson county, Missouri, and
he is trying to get his money back. The
| lower court decided in his favor, and
| the supreme court affirms the decision.
Like the Kirkman Case.
| Cumulative sentences of Kansas
| courts for two separate crimes, even If
| the trials are at different terms of the
preme court in affirming the decision
of the district court in Finney county
in the appeal of Ormal w. Finch. Finch
| was convicted of manslaughter in Fin
to term in the penitentiary for two
years. He appealed to the supreme
| court in this case and while at liberty
under a bond he broke into a house,
was tried and convicted of burglary
| and larceny in 1905 and was sentenced
| to Is years in the penitentiary, the SEN
| terce to begin when the former sentence
| expired. He appealed to the supreme
no statute which permitted cumulative
| sentences except when tried for two
offenseS at the same term of court. The
court held that the two sentences were
not concurrent in the following op1n-
ion by Justice Smith:
while our statute only provides for
cumulative punishment of an offender
who has been convicted of two or more
offenses at the same term of court, it
indicates the legislative policy and the
justice of adapting the punishment to
the number as well as to the enOrm1ty
of crimes committed by one person and,
without regard to great technicality, 1t
is incumbent upon the courts of the
state to so conform the procedure as
to make the purpose of the law effec-
tive"
The points involved in this case are
much the same as those decided by
Judge ]. c. Pollock of the United States
circuit court in the Captain Kirkman
case Captain Kirkman was convicted
of conduct llnbeccming an officer in the
army by two distinct courts martials.
He served one sentence and then tried
to get out of the pen1tentiary under
habeas corpus on the ground that the
sentences were concurrent and not
cumulative.
Jolt for unregistered DOCTORS
The Kansas law requiring the regis
tration of physicians IS sustained by
the supreme court in a decision rem
dered today in the case of State vs.
Joseph Huff, an appeal from Franklin
county.
HUFF was a farmer who carried as
side line preparation of home manu-
facture which he believed would cure
cancer. He used to treat cases of this
sort on a fee basis, and the fact that
he had no license to practice medicine
caused the other doctors OF the county
to take steps to have his. business stop,
ped.
: Huff was. tried for his offense, in the
Justice of the peace court and the Jury
disagreed. He held that this served as
a bar to further prosecution, but the
supreme court takes the other view OIL
the case. The supreme court also says:
1T is not material to inquire whether
recommended was a domestic medicine
within the meaning of the phrase "a
used in the act; the fact that 1t was
domestic medicine would not constitute
a defense"
Foreign Corporation Wins Case. +
The supreme court holds that fail |
ure to comply with the corporation
laws of the state does not necessarily |
deprive the corporation failing to COM /
ply with these laws, with standing In |
the state courts. This decision was |
rendered in the case OF the Kansas
company against the Erie Re
troleum company. The Erie Petrol |
cum company. a foreign corporation,
brought suit for damages against the
Kansas Torpedo company in the Neo-
that the Kansas Torpedo company had
damaged some of it's oil wells by neg
ligence and unskilfulness In shoot
ing the wells. The Kansas torpedo
company tried to throw the case out
Of court on the ground that the plain
tiff had not complied with the Kan
sas corporation laws The lower court
allowed the case to be tried on It's
this decision. The supreme court says:
'Litigants may properly take advan-
rage of this law, and if done in time
~ and proper manner they Will be
without cause has been for long time
N default we can not say that the
court is guilty of an abuse of dfscre-
ton when 1t permits the delinquent de-
'endant to defend the cause of action
1n its merits.
Mrs. Ida Smith Wins Atchison Case.
In the lorg-standing divorce suit be-
-ween Ida K. Smith and Thomas B.
Smith of Atchison, the court sustains
he decision of the lower court in favor
# Mrs. Smith.
In this controversy Mrs. Smith was
awarded the divorce and large ali
nony; and allegations of a most sensa-
ional nature were made by both sides
hat he was unable to pay the judg
nent rendered against him, and was
n Jail at one time for contempt of
court. The supreme courts decision
means that he must conform to the de-
eision of the lower court.
Floor May Be Personal Property.
In the case of the Guaranty Saw
ngs bank of Manchester, N. H, plain
iff in error, against r. NJ. James, the
question when a floor is not floor is
Iettled. Incidentally the court takes
occasion to administer rebuke to the
attorneys. The court says: Rule Z
II this court, relating to the prepara-
ion OF cases to be considered therein,
frrV0n rad tn En 10f No 4xa.I
If the record has been supplied. Rule
% has also been utterly disregarded. :
However, as it was stated on the !
presentation of the case that reasons