The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-03-15
BAD FOR JOINTS.
Must Pay Attorney Who Pros
ecutes in Supreme Court.
New Ruling May Make the At
torney General Rich.
~,,., ana HnTFCE
WILL GET 500 APIECE
Files Motions for Allowances
Aggregating $500.
Decision Was Rendered in the
Frank PlamOndon Case.

A brand new way to make things
hot for the joint keepers has been
pointed out by the Kansas supreme
court, and today Attorney General jack
son filed motions with the court, ask
ing to be allowed, on behalf of himself
and ex-Attorney General c. c. Cole
man, attorney fees to the amount d
$780, to be paid by jointists convicted
in the supreme court for violating IN
functions.
That such a procedure would stick
was not discovered until on February
II, former Assistant Attorney General
T. F. Carver of Topeka filed with tns
court a motion asking to be allowed
500 as an attorneys fee for prosecut-
ing and convicting Frank r Plamon
don of violating an injunction lssueu
by the Shawnee county district court
The motion was as follows:
Comes now the state by L. r. Gar
YER prosecuting and moves the court
to tax as part of the costs herein a
reasonable attorneys fee Tor the az
torney for the state in this court, ana
says that a reasonable Zee 1or the ser
vices performed is $780,
1t was this motion that opened up
the way for the collection of attorney
fees in such cases by the attorney ger
eral, for the supreme court, after near
ing the arguments by Mr.. Carver, ana
by Galen Nichols on behalf of Plamon-
don. allowed the motion, ana p1ied ar
other 800 of costs upon Mr.. Plamoh-
DON This 800 becomes a lien on the
property where the joint was conduct
ed unless it is paid by Plamondon.
Mr.. Carver, it will be understood,
had already been allowed fees PROVO
ed by law for prosecuting Plamondon
in the lower court. The 500 allowed
by The supreme court was additional
fees for carrying the prosecution
through the supreme court, ana again
convicting his man.
Lets the Attorney General In
This ruling of the supreme court
simply meant that the attorney general
of the state, under the law. might also
collect 500 for every injunction case
which he successfully prosecutes
against a liquor dealer in the supreme
court Ex-Attorney General Coleman
and the present attorney general, MT
Jackson, are starting in to collect what
Is coming to them under this decision.
In the case of Chad Thomas, from
CowIev county, a fee is asked on be-
half of ex-Attorney General {. {. Cole
man for 800 for briefinG and arguing the
case in the supreme COURT ana @1oo
more for briefing and submitting mo-
ton to dismiss in the United states su-
preme court.
Another motion is filed for 800 fees
for the present attorney general In the
Frank Former case from Miami county.
Another is the Arthur Schmidt case
from Cowley county. wherein 500 1s
asked for in behalf of c. c. Coleman.
The case of Charles E. Taylor of
Miami county is made the basis of an
other action in behalf of F. s. Jackson,
for 800.
On behalf of c. c.. Coleman the sum
of 500 is asked in the case of Oscar
Schmidt of Miami county.
Other motions for allowances in other
cases may be made.
If is believed that this new turn in
affairs will have the effect of making
iointists convicted of violating an In
function think twice before they ap-
peal their case to the supreme court.
Heretofore a large number of these
cases have been appealed. Two were
tried at the last term of court. The
county attorney does not follow such
cases any further than the district
court. From that time on they are ex-
cIusively in the charge Of the attorney
general, and he is the one that gets the
extra fee.