The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-10-05
BEGINS TO GRIND.
Supreme Court Hands Down
List of Ia Opinions.
Liquor Bills Good Evidence
Against JOintist.
BAD FOR CASH CURTIS.
Court Sends Men to Jail for.
Violating Injunction.
Judge JOhnston's Opinion on
Mule Stealing Case.
BAD FOR CASH CURTIS,

|
this morning, proved to be a disap-
pointment to the many lawyers of the
state who were expecting that a lot of
very important cases would be de-
cided. Only fourteen opinions were
included in the list. and none Of these
were of statewide importance. This
was probably due to the sickness of
several of the justices and the death
of Justice Greene, which has inter-
fered with the summers deliberations
of the court.
Bad for Cash" Curtis.
Bills and accounts of liquor sales
are held by the supreme court to be
good evidence against jointist. This
decision was made today by the SUI
preme, court in the appeal of Jim Corn
from the district court of Allen coun-
ty. The opinion was written by JUS
tice Graves. This opinion will be
hailed with glee by the Shawnee
county officials, for recently Cash Cur
tbs was convicted on forty-nine counts
in the local district court for viola
lions of the prohibitory law and
good deal of the evidence presented
during the trial of the case consisted
of bills and accounts of Curtis whole
sale trade of beer to the druggists in
this city.
In July, 1906. Corn was arrested by
the sheriff and the assistant attorney
y,
a lot of beer found in the ice chest
several bills for liquors by the case
from big brewing companies were also
seized. At the trial of the case these
bills were introduced as evidence and
had an important part in convicting
Corn of violating the prohibitory law
and maintaining a nuisance. He ap-
pea1ed to the supreme court on the
ground that the bills should not be al
lowed as evidence against him. But
,-f n ~ dc n wi
dence was admissible in showing the
kind and character of the business
conducted by Corn.
Justice Mason, in the appeal of Ly-
man Ford from the same county in
another liquor case which was de-
cided today by the court and which
involved the same questions as the
Corn case, delivered an opinion also
holding that bills and accounts were
good evidence against violators of the
prohibitory law.
Important Injunction Decision.
In another liquor case in which the
opinion of the court was written by
Justice Smith, the appeal of Jack Por-
ter and John Cummings from Mont |
gomery county was denied and the
decision of the lower court affirmed.
The court held that an Injunction |
against using a building for Joint !
when once granted was always a re-
preventing the use of the |
for selling liquors no matter
how often the ownership of the prop |
erty was changed. The court also |
held that it was not necessary that the |
new owners should know of this in !
junction.
Along back in 1904 an injunction was
granted against a building in Independ- /
ence. The persons then owning the |
sold it and a new Joint" was
in it. The new owners were |
arrested, fined $500 and given six months
81 60 ,f1r,, ~ ir, toll =
ng the injunction. The court held that
,nce an injunction was granted against
building it always stood.
Chief Justice on Both Sides of Case.
In the appeal of G. H. Mckinney from
conviction of stealing mule in Finney
county the decision of the lower court
vas reversed and Chief Justice john
ton in the opinion of the supreme court
lecided that the possession of property
ecently stolen does not warrant the in
erence that the person in whose pos
ession such property is found is guilty
# larceny 1t is the unexplained pos
ession which constitutes prima facie
of the offense.
The mule was stolen from a pasture in
april. 1906 Four days later it was found
n McKinney's possession a hundred
niles away. He was arrested for steal
ng it, He claimed he bought it. The
over court held that having 1t in his
cssession so soon after the theft was
|
lotion for the theft of it. The supreme
curt reversed this.
A peculiar circumstance appears In
his case in that Chief Justice Johnston
rrote the opinion reversing the decision
f the lower court, and then wrote
issenting opinion in which he and JUS
ice Mason hold that the evidence was
efficient for the conviction of Mckfn-
ey This circumstance appears from
he fact that the case fell to Justice
ohuStou in the drawing for the diStri-
ution of cases. The court, after con-
ldering the case, voted as to which way
was to be decided, five members vo-
ed to reverse the decision of the lower
ourt Justices johnson and Mason vo-
I'd to affirm the decision Of the lower |
curt By the rules of the court it was
ben necessary that Justice Johnston
rite the opinion as decided by the ma
1rity of the court, and then write an
pinion expressing his own views and
ontrary to the opinion he had written
Or the court.
The following opinions were handed
own by the supreme court today:
BY JOHNSTON, c. j.
z. B. Lewis, administrator. etc, VS..
usan E. Woodruse; error from Brown
,unty; reversed and remanded for fur
1er proceedings. ,
The First National bank of Hutchin-
On. Kansas VS.. s. c .Pearce; error !
ON Ness county; affirmed
The state Of Kansas VS.. G. H. McKin- :
ey: appeal from Finney county; re- :
ersed and remanded for a new trial. !,
ohnston, C. J., and Mason, J., dissent
BY MASON. ].
The state of Kansas VS.. Martin Hib- {
ard; appeal from Labette county; af- I
d.. Mcdonald ct al VS.. William DAN
. -sst.s