The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-09-16

is absolutely in the power of these exc
cutors to show the truth The question:
before me for decision is: Can one party
to a suit in this late day and age, pre-
vent the other party from gettlng at
the truth?
sI recognize as strongly as does any
one the sentiment that prevails regard
ing what is called a Christian burial: l
recoenize the force of sentiment, but
can it be possible that sentiment can
prevent a court from getting az Inc
truth? The contest here is between d
demand that the truth shall prevall on
one side and a demand that sentiment
shall control the court on the other. -,
'Unless an autopsy is made there VIII
always be doubt and division OF oplnIo,Il
regarding the true cause OF TINS man .s :
death If an analysis of the contents OF
the stomach shows that he did not ole
from morphine poisoning, the 1rlenqs
and family will thank the court II
the analysis does show that he dled
from morphine poisoning, nopooy mas a
right to keep back the truth.
Arguments of Attorneys.
At shortly after o'clock the exami-
nation of witnesses came TO concIu-
sion and j. S. Dean, one or the attor-
neys for the insurance company mace
the opening argument for the tl;nh Itdihtiati Ia
He reviewed the evidence when hao
been procured and made strong pre-
sentation of the theory of suicide when
the insurance company has set up.
the defense replied. After advancing
the opinion that the court had not the
power to order dislnterment ne STA
ted that such an order could not De
made effective because Mrs: l. ID. Fer-
kins against whom the order must be
directed was not a party in the suit.
Mrs Perkins and not the executors OF
the estate was the legal guardian or
the body of the dead man. That IN case
the order should be issued Mrs. Perkins
could not be held accountable for fall
ure to turn over the body to the COM
mission which was appointed by the
court. The defense refused to have
voice in the choosing of the commits
sion. Judge Barker, also of the de-
fense stated that -a-dangerous pre-
cedent was being established II an or
der should be issued because all tnsur-
ance companies could then come and
damand disinterment and delay pay
ment of Just claims. A c. Mitchell 1oI-
lowed for the insurance company. Chas.
Lescher of Lawrence, an undertaken,
who embalmed the body of Perkins, oe-
MED the story that Perkins had picked
ont his own coffin or had in any way
held any conversation relative to mat
ters of burial He told of the manner
in which the body was buried. Elon >.
Clark, general agent for the insurance
company who wrote the policy on the
life of Perkins, stated that Perkins had
claimed to be worth from $25O,0OO 70
S4OO, 900; that he mentioned valuable
mining lands in southern Kansas, that
he had made 100000 in London by es-
tablishing a system for playing the
stock markets, that he had strong
box holding securities worth OO,0OO
but refused to show the contents to
anyone, claiming that not even Mrs
Perkins was acquainted with the con-
tents. Mr.. Clark related the cfrcum-
stance of issuing the policy, stating
that Perkins gave his note for the
amount of the premium on the insur-
ance and that Clark took up this note
and gave his personal check to the
company covering the premium.
: A certified copy of an inventory of
the estate owned by Perkins was offered
by the defense and objected to by the
attorneys for the plaintiff. The objec-
ton was overruled and the inventory
accepted 1t showed. personal pro-
perty holding of some $4,000, tracts of
land value not given, the whole sup
posed to be worth 100000 to $3.50, ,000..
Affidavits, ex parte, were offered by
the attorneys for the insurance COM
pany attacking the value in the inven-
tory and claiming that the value was
too high. They also contained the state
ment that the land had been held by
Clara Perkins and but recently trans |
ferred to the trustees of the Perkins |
estate. The court refused to accept the |