The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-10-10
WHERE FINE GOES.
CONTINUED from Page one.)

dant appealed on tho ground that
there was no evidence to show that
the Manhattan cocktail is an intoxi-
eating drink The supreme court
cocktail as An American drink,
strong. stimulating, and cold, made of
spirits, bitters and little sugar,
with various aromatic and stimulat-
ing additions. The particular kind of
cocktail under discussion is popularity
understood to have taken its name
from the island whose inhabitants
first became addicted to its use. While
its characteristics are not so widely
known as whisky, brandy or GIN 1t is
our understanding that a Manhattan
cocktail is generally and popularity
known to be Intoxicating"
Jointists Win This Case.
The Leavenworth county cases in
which District Judge Fitzpatrick or
dered a lot of joint fixtures turned
back to the owners of the saloons be-
cause the attorney general was not on
| hand to look after the cases, were de-
cided by the supreme court today in
favor OF the saloon keepers. The
| three cases were against T. F. Foren,
Sam Healer and ]. Lau.
The time for hearing these three
cases was not known to the attorney
general and no notice was sent to
him of when the cases would come
up. County Attorney Bond asked to
have the cases continued. Judge Gill
patrick refused to do this, and or
dered that the cases go to trial at
once. The attorney general had all
the evidence in the cases, and Mr..
Bond was unable to make much of
showing. On the ground that the
sheriff's return failed to state that the
fixtures were used in maintaining
the liquors and bar fixtures returned.
The state appealed from this de-
cision to the supreme court. Judge
Benson wrote the courts opinion,
which is that Judge Fitzpatrick was
justified in ordering that the fixtures
be returned.
This does not. however, interfere
with the trial of the three defendants
in the regular course of business of
the lower court.
Fritz Durein ''Stuck."
The judgment of the Shawnee
against Fritz Durein, the we'll known
Topeka liquor seller, was affirmed by
the supreme court. Durefn appealed
from the decision of the lower court
on certain technical grounds relating
to the issuance and amendment of the
complaint to be filed before the trial.
without any order having been made
setting aside the original complaint
1t also holds that no new warrant was
necessary to hold the defendant
Durein's fine is 5000 and 80 days in
jail.
Opal Swarens Goes to Her Father.
The supreme court today awarded
the custody of S-year-Old Opal
Swarens, the little Reno county girl,
to her father, B. L. Swarens. over the
claim of the child's grandparents, F.
M Swarens and Isabelle SwarenS. This
sustains the decision of the lower
court At the same time the court
denies the application of the grand
parents. brought as an original pro-
ceeding in the supreme court, for the
custody of the child.
1t appears that B. l.. Swarens,
while residing in Oklahoma, lost his
wife. She left an infant daughter,
Opal, who was then a year old. The
father of the child brought her to
Nickerson, Kan, and left her with
her grandparents. There she lived
for about eight years, and the
affection between the child and her
grandparents became very strong.
About three years ago, Mr. Swarens,
the father of the child, remarked,
and recently sought to regain posses
sion of his daughter. The probate
court of Reno county awarded him
the custody of the child. The grand
parents appealed. first to the district
court and then to the supreme court.
The supreme court says:
1.-The father has not been especially
devoted to his daughter. His conduct
toward her has been as though he
anticipated a family from his second
marriage and felt that, in such event,
he might deem it best to leave Opal
with her grandparents indefinitely;
and in that case it would be best for
her if their relations were not too close
and affectionate, but having been dis
appointed in this expectation, he now
desires to have her with him. This
may not be the true explanation of his
conduct, but whether it is or not. his
apparent want of demonstrative affec-
ton does not affect his rights as a
parent. There is no reason to doubt
that the child would have a good home
and be we'll cared for in either place.
AS mere matter of sentiment it may
seem hard to sever the ties of affec-
ton which have grown up between the
child and her grandparents. and place
her with a stepmother who is a COM
parative stranger to her, but courts
can not be guided by such considera-
lions. The law regards the father.
where, as in this case. the mother is
not living, as the rightful custodian of
his child, as against the claims of all
Others"
Can't Help a Poor Man.
The supreme court can not help a
man who is convicted of crime but
who is so poor that he can not provide
the proper record to the higher court.
Carl Baker was convicted of murder
in the second degree in the district
court OF Miami county. he mad three
trials of the case and then appealed to
the supreme court. But the record
brought to Topeka was lacking in
practically all of the evidence submit
ted at the hearings in Miami county.
poverty affidavit was shown and the
court was asked to consider the de-
PENDANTS inability to pay for a COM
plete record. The court says that it
can not do this and that such a pro-
vision to enable a poor man to appeal
his case and have the state pay for
the record is a question for the law
makers and not for the court.
Raps the Primary Law.
The Kansas primary law trainers
weer hit pretty hard in the decision of
the Sunreme court to compel the con-