The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-01-08
MRS. GORDON WINS
One Of the Cases Over Husbands
Property Is Decided.
Supreme Court SuStainS Shaw
nee District Court.
RAILROADS MUST PAY.
Can Not Require Passenger to
Sign Release.
AnnIioS fo ThOsa Who Ride on
RAILROADS MUST PAY.
AppIies to Those Who Ride on
Freight Trains.

title TO possession of certain lands and
property left by G. S. Gordon, deceas-
ed. was sustained by the supreme
court today in a decision that held
that the Injunction had been properly
allowed. The injunction was prayed
for by Jennie S. Gordon, widow of the
late C. s. Gordon.
This Gordon-Mun case had only
recently been threshed through the
Shawnee court and the public is ia
miliar with the contentious of Lille
Gordon Mum, the daughter OF q. ..
Gordon as against those of Mr.. COR
don's second wife.
While the Shawnee suit was pend
ing Lille Gordon Mum brought suit
against Jennie S. Gordon, her step
mother, in the courts of both Arkan-
sas and Colorado for quiet title TO
lands in both those states left by the
late. G. S. Gordon. The injunction
prayed for was to restrain the bring
ing of these suits until the Shawnee
case and property had been disposed
of. The supreme court held that the
Shawnee court had jurisdiction and
that it's injunction should stand.
The Kansas supreme court has denied
the petition for a writ of mandamus
asked for by D. A. Williams, negro,
to compel the Parsons board of educa-
school exclusively for white children.
The Williams residence was located be-
tween the railroad tracks and in order
to get to the schools set apart for ne
groes it was necessary Tor his children
to cross these tracks. Williams wanted
to send his children to the school for
white pupils as it would not be so dan
gerous and he contended that the
board of education had no right to
segregate white and negro children. The
h. <aoIrc- nc
not particularly dangerous and that the
board of education had right to
segregate the children in this case and
that the Williams children should at
tend the negro school.
A railroad company in Kansas cannot
require a passenger on freight train
to sign a release absolving the company
from all damages which might occur.
This is the decision of the supreme
court in the suits of M. P. and T. G.
Davis against the Santa F'e railroad
company. appealed from Wilson county.
The two men boarded a freight train
and refused to sign a release absolving
the company from all damages which
they might suffer by reason of any ac-
cidents. The law requiring railroads
to allow passengers to ride on freight
trains provides that damages cannot be
collected except for the willful negli-
gence Of the company and its employees.
But the release which the company re-
quires passengers to sign absolves. the
company from damages from any
cause. The two men were put off the
train when they refused to sign the re-
| lease and they brought suit for dam
| ages. The court holds that they were
| entitled to damages and that the de-
| mands of the railroad company were
| illegal and unreasonable.
A city in Kansas has no right to
prevent a telephone company from
building and maintaining lines within
| the city, provided the ordinances of
the city regulating the use of streets
and alleys and reasonable regulations
| are obeyed by the telephone company.
Such is the decision of the Kansas SUI
preme court in the suit of the New
Hope Telephone company against the
| city of Concordia. The company
wanted to build line in the city, but
| the city council refused to permit it..
The company built its line anyway
and the city officers cut down the
poles. The supreme court holds that
| the state has the only right to pro-
| hibit the exercise of franchise rights
| in cities and all that a city council
can do is to prescribe regulations for
the construction and maintenance of
| the line, but it must not interfere or
prevent the building of the telephone
system once its charter has been
! granted.
4
/ If a consumer brags upon the quail
ity of the alcohol he has in his pos
session and supports his contentious
by the statement that the alcohol must
be good because he bought it from
a certain druggist, naming the drug
giSt, and then the consumer dies as
result of drinking this alcohol, his
encomium upon the druggist cannot be
used as evidence against that individ-
ual in suit for damages brought by
the consumers widow The supreme
| court so decided today in reversing
the judgment of the lower court of
Neosho county in the suit brought by
Lily Campbell against Chase Brown,
a druggist. David L. Campbell bought
a quart of alcohol from Chase Brown
a druggist, and invited neighbor to
come in and drink with him. To in
duce compliance with his invitation
Campbell said 1t is good; ! got 1t OF
Chase Brown.
Campbell died two days after
! drinking the alcohol and the evidence
: tended to show that death resulted
from wood alcohol poisoning. In ar
} action brought by his widow as ad-
ministratrix for damages based upor
the alleged negligence of Brown, the
evidence of the neighbor was admit
ted in which Campbell was quoted az
declaring that the alcohol must be
good for he got it from Chase Brown
The supreme court reversed the lower
| courts action in giving damages tc
CampbelPs widow for the reason thai
this evidence was admitted. In giving
its reasons therefor the supreme court
held that "the words quoted were not
! a spontaneous exclamation; they were
) not concommitant with the principa
; act COT obtaining the alcohoD: nor {
part of it; and they did not illustrate
t explain or characterize the act blu
4 simply related the purchase as a pas
+ event-a narrative of a completed
transaction
i When a telegraph company fails to de
i liver a telegram in a reasonable time an
t causes a person to take an unnecessar
trip the company is liable for damage
: and smart money! This is the decisio