The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1909-11-06
Long Drawn Out Litigation Has
Another Chapter.
Will Be Taken to the Z. s. Su-
preme Court.
GOVERNMENT HELPED
Case Argued by Interstate Com
merce Attorney.
John e. Hessin Loses Manhat-
tan Smallpox Case.

JOnn II. HeSSln Loses Manhat-
tan Smallpox Case.
Henry Brinkmeier cannot collect from
the Missouri Pacific railroad on account
of injuries received because ar auto
matte car coupler was defective. The
supreme court affirmed the decision of
the Sedgwick county district court in
the case. Brinkmeier was brakeman
and when he tried to couple some cars
found that one coupler was defective.
When he tried to push the coupler into
place with his foot the coupler sudden
iy slipped and his foot was crushed. He
brought suit for s35 900 damages on the
ground that the company should have
kept the coupler in good repair. The
company contended that under the au-
tomato appliance law that when once
it had equipped its cars with the ap-
r]iance that it's liability ended and it
could not be held for the damages. The
district court gave Brinkmeier $50, 600
j damages and this decision was reversed
by the supreme court. On a new trial
at Wichita decision was handed down
in favor of the railroad company and
this is the decision affirmed by the su-
IRENE court TODAY The case will be
taken to the supreme court of the Uni
by all railroad men and attorneys for
/ the three years it has been in litigation
as the decisions meant great deal to
| the railroad employees as to whether or
not they could collect damages for in
juries. The interstate commerce COM
mission sent a special attorney to Kan
saS to aid in prosecuting the case, the
commission contending that the COM
pany should keep it's automatic couplers
| in repair after they were installed.
|
| In affirming the decision of the Shaw
rec district court in the case against
BERTHE M. Hartburg and others. appeal
ed by Bette Kistler, the supreme court
| held that there was no claim sustained
that the property arrangement effected
before Betsey Kistler secured her di-
vorce was unfair, unjust or lnequlta-
Bile. The fact that the parties to the
suit had based their property settlement
on q separation and afterwards o di-
Vorce suit had been Instituted made no
difference with This settlement provid-
ing always the settlement had been fair
and just in the first place and agreed
to by the parties chiefly concerned.
John Downs loses three quarter Sec
lions of Wichita county land because
he neglected to file a deed for reglstra-
ton for twelve years after he had pur-
chased the property. In 1893 Downs
bought the land from B. M. Anderson.
| The deed of purchase was not record
i. d for twelve years thereafter In the
meantime some former owners of the
:and innocently signed a quit claim
deed to the property to a man named
Robinson. Robinson then conveyed
this land to Benjamin Warren by
| warranty deed and Warren sold it to
w. H. Rich who is now declared to De
she owner. Whether or not there was
I fraud in the deals the court does not
say as there was no findings to ind1-
cate such. Rich bought.the land from
Warren in good faith and the supreme
court says that he is entitled to the
| protection the investment of his money
| deserves The court says that it is
very sorry for Downs, who undoubted-
" bought and paid for the property,
| but he is really not entitled to very
5eluch consideration after all as he
| tailed to record his deed to the land
| which would have given him an abso-
| lutte title to the property and would
have prevented the transactions which
resulted in his loss of the land through
the courts through his own careless
| ness.
! Last winter there was a smallpox
epidemic at Manhattan and there was
grave danger of many students of the
Agricultural college there becoming
| Infected with the disease. The city
authorities, in trying to eradicate the
disease, hunted for a pest house. Be
| tween the town and the Agricultural
| college there is small park and an
| cid stone building in this park was
decided upon as pest house, as it was
| isolated from all other buildings and
could be easily avoided. Twelve pa
tients were placed in this building
which had not been used for a long
time. John E. Hessin lived near the
| Dark and about five hundred feet from
this pest house. He obtained an in
junction preventing the city from using
the building as pest house and re-
quired the removal of the patients.
| This injunction was obeyed by the
city, but later the city appealed to the
| supreme court The decision of the
Ic wer court in granting the injunction
was reversed, the supreme court hold
| ing that city officers who were trying
| to do their duty and prevent the spread
| cf this disease could not be enjoined
and that the injunction was improperly
| -ssued. The costs in this case are tax
| ed against Mr.. Hessin.
The Bert Tawney case has been re-
versed by the supreme court again
! and will have to be tried a third time
| in the district court of Franklin
county. Bert Tawney stole three pigs
from a neighbor- The pigs were
worth about eight dollars each. Taw-
ney was arrested and at the preiim-
| mary hearing was bound over to the
district court for grand larceny. At
the first trial Tawney was convicted
| and sentenced to prison. The supreme
court reversed the decision On the
second trial Tawney was again con-
victed and the supreme court again
| reversed this decision. Both reversa1s
were on account of technicalities in
| the trial.
The case has now cost several thou
sand dollars more than the hogs were
worth There were many witnesses
that had to be paid and the attorneys
| for Tawney exhausted every resource
| to keep their client from going to
prison. Another trial must be given
1 in the district court
| A man who sells liquors is the chap
who must know whether or not the