The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-05-06

or itself would not make the contract
unlawful it was one of several cir
cumstances indicating the purpose OF
the arrangement
The court says that after the Nelson
suit was brought vigorous search was
made by the superintendent for the
company and Jenkins for the purpose
of finding the old contract. 1t was
finally discovered nailed up in pox
in the Office at Blue Rapids. 1t had
come through the flood of 1903 and
portions of its provisions are not legi-
Bile. No officer of the company was
willing to testify that he had seen II
since the flood. The court says that
while A. Henley, the president of the
company, testified that this was the
contract under which Jenkins worked,
there is nothing TO indicate that Hen
ley ever saw the paper before the SUIT
was started or was aware of its exist
ence. In concluding the opinion the
court says: 1--WE think it is clear that
courts ought not to permit the en-
ployer to avoid liability for injuries to
his workmen resulting from his own
negligence by colorado arrangement
such as this appears to have BEEN"
The state live stock sanitary COM
missioner has no authority to appoint
a deputy commissioner in any county
in Kansas, under the decision of the
supreme court today. The statutes do
not permit this. The decision was
made in the suit of James b. Moore
against Charles w. Wilson and John
B. Baker in an appeal from Sherman
county. Baker appointed Wilson a
deputy live stock commissioner and
Wilson put a quarantine on Moore's
cattle for mango. After no mango
was found Moore brought suit to
allowed in the lower court and the
supreme court sent the case back for
new trial with instructions to tell
the jury in the new trial that Wilson
had no authority to order the quaran-
tine.
Three Shawnee county cases were
handed down by the supreme court
today. They were:
Joe Lane and F. H. Leonard against
M. L. George and I. H McQuilkin-
May Benton against Jas. o. Benton.
G. E. Raney against the North To-
peka Drainage district.
The Lane case involved the trade CT
some property in which the four men
were interested. Lane and Leonard
brought the suit on account of some
Irregularities in the title to the land
they obtained in the trade. AS they
had taken possession the lower court
held that they did not have any case.
The supreme court affirmed the de-
ciSion.
The Benton case is an old timer,
this being the second time it was be-
fore the supreme court. The court
sustained it's former decision. The case
involved the distribution of the estate
of A. B. Benton to his children. The
former decision was modified
The Raney suit involved the right
of the North Topeka Drainage district
to use some land owned by Raney on
which to construct the dixie along the
Kaw The fee title of the Land re-
mained in the original owner and the
damages allowed are to be considered
as simply paying for the right to use
the strip of land necessary for the
| dixie. The supreme court sustained
the lower court in the case.
The Kansas supreme court declared
| today that occasional irritability, fault
finding and outburst of temper on the
part of one followed by a demonstra-
| tive affecting and forbearance, with
sincere desire for the love and COM
panionship of the other, do not constl-
| tute extreme cruelty. This opinion came
in reversing the decree of divorce OBJ
tanned OH the grounds of extreme cru
city in the Allen county district court
by Sarah G. Rowe from her husband
Frank S. Rowe.
The supreme court defined extreme
cruelty saying that it exists when the
conduct of the husband or wife is such
that the life or health of the other,
may be in danger, or when such con-
duct unjustifiedly wounds the mental
| feelings or so destroys the peace of
mind as seriously to impair the health
| or endanger the life of the other or is
| objects and aims of matrimony.
I'When words alone,' says the court,
| "are relied on it must appear that they
were uttered not merely as complaints
against the real or apparent misconduct
| of the other, but that they were uttered
| without iustifajble cause and for the
purpose of inflicting pain"
Mr. and Mrs. Rowe became acQua1nt-
| ed at Pixies Peak in October, 1889, ana
were married in lola October 5, 1904.
Rowe lived at Baltimore where he was
a railroad ticket agent and there the
| couple went to live. In June, 1907, Mrs.
| Rowe came to lola where this action
was begun in November, 1908. The AL
len county district court granted her
| a decree on the ground of extreme cru
! city also granting her alimony.
widow who consents in writing to
her husbands will cannot repud1ate
her consent because she subsequently
discovers that the husbands estate
Is larger than she anticipated, accord
ing to a decision of the supreme court
handed down today in the case of Ella
| PirtIe against T. G. Pirtle from Butler
county.
Ella Pirtle brought suit in the dis
trict court of Butler to set aside her
consent to her husbands will given in
writing at the time the will was exc
cuted.
The grounds upon which Ella Pirtle
asked to have her consent annulled
were that at no time did she knowing
ly nor understandingly consent In
writing or otherwise to her husband S
willing away from her over one-half
of his property.
When a service is performed or use
given by one party to another with
the intention that no charge shall be
made and it is accepted on that theory
the party performing the service can
not subsequently, upon changing his
mind charge and recover for the ser
vice. The supreme court held to this
effect in a case brought from Neosho
county by the Kansas Crude Oil and
Gas company against the Kansas &
Texas Oil, Gas & Pipe Line co. The
decision Of the lower court was az