The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-03-20
Lawrence's Reasons for Not
Paying Her Bends.
State Holds 100000 Worth of
Repudiated Securities.
WHY THEY'RE NOTPAID
Claim Kansas Has Received Gen.
erous Treatment From City.
Also That Compromise of In
debtedness Had Been Made.

1t takes the attorneys for the city of
Lawrence 225 pages of closely printed
book-space to tell the supreme court
all they know about the case of the
state of Kansas versus the city of Law
renee in which the state is trying to
make Lawrence pay S100,0 900 for bonds
which Lawrence issued and has now re-
pudiated. The brief for the city of
Lawrence was filed today in the SUI
preme court.
The bonds were issued at the time the
state was establishing a state universi-
ty. Lawrence offered to give the state
500, 600 if it would place the university
in that town, and the state accepted the
offer. Lawrence issued its bonds, and
they became the property of the state
school fund. After they had run for a
long time and Lawrence had paid $780,
900 interest, the city refused to pay the
principal The state then brought suit
to compel the payment of the bonds.
The brief of the city of Lawrence is
summarized as follows:
I'm conclusion we desire to say that
the city of Lawrence, having as we
have before said, given to the state 40
acres of land free of charge. having
paid the state of Kansas $50, 500 to en-
able it to build building for its own
use, without any consideration ever
paid, or agreed to be paid the city of
Lawrence for the same, there is no
principle of law or equality that the court
can find that would justify the court in
finding that the city of Lawrence is
compelled to pay anything further on
it's bonds. If the state of Kansas will
not perform it's contract, and be honest,
how can it expect it's citizens to be hon
est. There is not one law for the SOW
ereign and another for the subjects.
I'VE claim, therefore, that the judg-
ment of the court below must be af-
firmed.
First. because the bonds were is
sued by virtue of special act confer
ring corporate powers. which the con-
stitution of the state of Kansas express
ly prohibited.
Second because the bonds were is
sued in violation of the constitution OF
Kansas, which required the legislature
to provide for an equal and uniform
rate of assessment and taxation.
Third, because the bonds were is
sued by the city of Lawrence to the
plaintiff without any consideration re- |
ceived paid or agreed to be paid there |
Fourth, because there has been full
and complete settlement and compro-
mise between the state of Kansas and |
bonds. and the said bonds, by reason |
thereof. have been fully satisfied and
the defendants discharged from all liza
bility in relation thereto"
Girl Got Livery StaDIe.
An interesting sequel to the Schles-
appealed to the supreme court from |
Dickinson county a few days ago. |
came to light today when an appeal
was filed in the case of Johanna Rindt |
against John B. Favor, sheriff of Dick |
inson county, Bertha Schlesener and |
her father, William Schlesener.
In the lower court, Bertha Schlesen-
er recovered a Judgment for damages
It'd h
that he had seduced her under prom
ise of marriage. AS soon as the girl |
secured the judgment, she levied on
livery stable in the town of Woodbine, |
were supposed to be the
property of Robert Rindt.
Johanna Rfndt, the mother of Rob-
ert Rindt then stepped into the case,
and claimed that the stable did not
really belong to her son; that the
money to purchase the stable had
been furnished by her, and that he had
by misrepresentation had the title to
the property put in his name. She
asked the lower court to grant in.
junction against the sheriff to stop the
sale of the property. and also an order
against her son to compel him to
make the property over to her. Judge
O. L. Moore heard the arguments for
the injunction in the lower court and
after hearing, ordered that the tenn
porarv injunction be dissolved.
It looks as though Bertha Schlesen-
ar was likely to collect on her judg
nent against Robert Rindt provided
The supreme court Sustains the de-
cision of the lower court in the two
cases pending. The attorneys for Mrs
Johanna Rindt are Hurd & Hurd. s. S.
Smith and c. A. Crawley. For the
sheriff the attorney is c. S. Crawford.
Belonged to Wrong Man.
It's pretty hard luck when man
gets judgment against another man. in
court of justice, and takes possession
IF certain property belonging sup
oosedly to the party against whom
was rendered, to find that
he property belongs to another man.
That was the case with G. F. Robert
son Of Mankata. He secured a judg-
nent against T. c. Newby and J. o.
Newby for $3.50. and attached five city
OTIS in Nankato which were supposed
o belong to the Newbys- After he had
'ecured what he supposed was a title
. the land. after bidding it in at
;heriff's sale r. n. McPherrin stepped
n and said that the land really be-
onged to him. and asked to have the
Iced set aside.
Judge Picker heard McPherrin's
,iea and decided that it was good. and
hat the land really belonged to him.
Ie set aside Robertsons deed. Rob-
.rtson today appealed the case to the