The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1909-09-30
is NOT SPECIFIC.
ctv Ordinance Regulating
Plumbing Equipment.
-
So Judge Dana Threw PribbIs
Case Out of Court.
APPLIED TO HOMES
And Not to Business Houses, De-
cided the Judge.
Another Big Batch of Minor
Cases Disposed OF.

1udee A. w. Dana dealt the city
nIunbing ordinance severe Do" ~
dav when he ruled in the district court
that the ordinance did not Apply To
business buildings and discharged Il
win Pribble, defendant on trial. as SOON
as the lawyers had stated their CASE
Prihble was charged with violating
that section of the ordinance Wh'ch plo-
1ided that drain pipes should be OF iron
e. distance of three feet from a build
Two In the building at S25 Kansas aV-
nre. occupied by a drug store and OF
fees, Pribble had had a contract TOT
rev inside plumbing and connected II
with an old tile pipe unoer one corner
of the structure. The city attorney
thought he had a good case against
him. o5 o,,d
the LAWYERS had stated their case the
nudge asked to see the ordinance.
Section Is of the plumbing ordinance
which il was charged had been viola
ted, reads: THAT portion OF mousse
drains inside of the walls and under
meath the buildings and for three rect
: outside the area of the foundation walls
shall be constructed of what is known
to commerce as extra heavy castlron
soil pipe and extra heavy fittings
House drains shall be securely an
chored to walls not less than five rect
apart, etc" .o,z
House drains" the judge read
"house drains. That surely means resi-
dcnces. We have drains in factories,
plants, stores and barns-and in houses
I believe this section applies only to
residences. .i,,,+
here. 1 doubt if the complaint is good,
that is, it would be open to a motion 10
make more definite and certain. L
doubt If the ordinance covers TINS Of
Tense and that you can hold the ue-
fcndart. These criminal ordinances ef
must be more specific. The defendant
The blow came like thunderbolt out
OF a clear sky to City Attorney Ralston
and Assistant Attorney Jim Clark.
yes, l guess we had better get that
section patched up said RalstOn- we
had a good case as far as the ordinance
covered but of course if the business
buildings are not included in that sec
ton we will have to do some work
right away"
The old ordinance has been in force
for 16 years. 1t was amended some ana
printed in the State Journal May 2,
1908.
This was the only case out of 40 city
cases brought up in the district court
which was to be tried. All others had
been dismissed or pleas of guilt taken;
H. this case, however, w. A. S. Bird
fcr The defendant thought lie could
fight it out and did not compromise.
Fortunately for him and his client the
merits of the case did not nave 10 De
brought before the jury.
In the same rapid fashion in which
the city cases have bone this term
nine more were ground off this morn
ing.
James White charged with main
tanning a nuisance had his case con-
tinued under $500 bond.
The case against five cases of beer
which has been on the docket for
three years was dismissed-as far as
the court is concerned.
C. Bradley charged with being
found in a gambling house had his
case dismissed on payment of costs |
His police fine was $40.
Eva Scott street walking, was dis |
missed to pay the costs.
Boots Henderson pleaded guilty to
a vagrancy charge and was fined $40. |
w. T. Lawless pleaded guilty to |
pay a fine of So for dumping refuse |
in an alley.
Felix Dotson and Wesley Dotson |
wer edismissed to pay costs on a |
charge charge of beirS found in a |
- orderly house.
Mary Floyd was dismissed from the |
charge of keeping a disorderly house, |
defendants costs.
The jury was then discharged for
the week.
Only two criminal cases from the |