The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1912-03-09


to anyone but was served by the hotel
porter as the travelling man requested.
The hotel furnished the ice. The To-
peka police raided the hotel, captured
the travelling mans beer and arrested
the porter and one of the managers
of the hotel.
The lower courts held that the ho-
tel allowing the beer to be kept and
allowing it to be consumed In room
of the hosiery constituted an offense
under the prohibitory law and the por-
ter and hotel manager were sent TO
Jail. They appealed but. the supreme
court sustained the decision
The supreme court was careful 10
say that it would be entirely differeht
if the travelling auhad sent the beer
to his own home and took his frienuS
there to drink it but when he took 1t
to a hotel and the hotel permitted him
to use the rooms and the porter 1t
was entirely different and a violation
of the law.
A police officer who obtains posses
sion of liquors seized in raids on
joints can not keep the liquor or the
money received in lieu for his own
personal use. The Kansas supreme
court held against Frank Stahl, for
mer chief of police OF Topeka, III a
suit brought by the city to compel
the payment by Stahl of money re-
ceived from the owners of the liquor
seized. After. the raids the owners
of the liquor obtained possession OF II
through rep1evin and later they were
required to pay Stahl the money value
of the liuuor StahI put the money in
his pocket and the city claimed that
he should turn it over to city funds'
after deducting the expenses OF stor-
age, transfer and litigation. The lower
court held in favor of Stahl- but the
supreme court reversed that decision
-
In affirming an appeal from Mont
gomery county the supreme court held
that a telephone company tIiat nde re-
fused to install a phone in private
residence was liable for the costs IN
CURED by the citizen who brought suit
to compel the company to put IN the
telephone. The telephone company IN
stalled the phone after the plalntln IN
the suit had appealed to the courts.
TIE plaintiff asked for attorney fees
and court costs which the company re-
fused to pay. The supreme court held,
that even though the company had IN
stalled the phone and thereby rendered
useless the further prosecution or the
suit, that it should be held liable for
the costs incurred by the plaintiff in
going to court to compel the company
to render service. In other words, -
the plaintiff had not been compelled TO
go to court as the result of the tele-
phone company refusing service costs
would never have been incurred. The
very fact that the company installed
the phone before the case came to tria1
was evidence as to the justice of the
plaintiffs claim. Ruth Bolt of Coffey-
VILE, was the plaintiff in the case and
Bell Telephone company of Coffeyville
the defendant.
George Dusenbery of Topeka was
awarded tract of valuable land in
Kiowa county today by the supreme
court when it affirmed the decision of
the Kiowa county court. 1t is a most
peculiar case. The courts, in this
case, treated deed as a mortgage
Years ago Dusenbery raised money on
this land by giving a deed to it, The
land was worth only a few hundred
dollars at that time. Now it is worth
the deed tried to keed the land by
virtue of his deed. Dusenbery intro
duced evidence to show that he had
to give the deed to raise money on
the land. The courts treated this as
case in equity and gave the land to
Dusenbery upon payment of the sum
he had originally raised on the land
by deed, thus treating the deed as a |
regular mortgage.
The supreme court sustained the |
district court of Shawnee county in
the case of Greer Brothers & Nc |
knight against the Davis Mercantile |
company, thereby deying the former /
a new trial in the dictrict court. The |
Davis Mercantile company, through |
broker, ordered a car load of toma- |
toes from the Greer-McKnight COM |
pany but when the goods arrived the |
cans were found to be leaking, swell |
ed and in bad condition. The Davis |
company rejected the car. Two MEM |
bers of the Greer-McKnight company |
came to Topeka and inspected the to- |
matoes. They found part of them in |
good condition and began to sort |
them. After the good had been sort |
ed from the bad and before any dis |
position was made of the good, the |
Davis establishment burned. The To- |
peka company refused to pay for the
shipment, holding it had not purchas- |
ed it but was simply storing the good |
tomatoes until some disposition was /
made of them by the owners The |
Topeka company was sustained in both |
courts.
Charles E. Sutton of Douglass coun- |
ty advertised a sale of pedigreed hogs
and in the catalogue mentioned the /
sire of one animal. w. J. Grist pur-
chased that animal then discovered |
there was a mistake in the catalogue |
and that the sire of the hog he had |
a Ill =,