Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1914-05-28
mo Contemplating
CITED NEwBERN TOWNSHIP
BOARD DISCHARGED
Evidence Did Not Show an Arbitrary
DisObedlence OF the Courts
Order, Judge Rules

OF contempt Oh COuEIp WoIo uAo
charged by Judge King At q nigh,
session last evening. Engle and
Minter. who as members OF the New
bern township board acted as two
OF the three members Of the board
Of highway commissioners, were
cited for failure to comply with the
courts order to erect a bridge across
Turkey Creek in Newbein township.
The evidence cid not slow. Judge
King ruled. that the bcar1 hac will
fully and arbitrarily disobeyed or
evaded the courts order. The case
was taken up late In the afternoon.
Judge King, In ruling upon the
case said: II do not believe that the
court has the power to specify what
kind Of q bridge shall be built. II
the court has not this power, and
unless 1t has been shown that the
township officers have failed to
exercise their discretion and have
failed to faithfully perform their
duty, then the court could not as
sess q fine for contempt. It seems
from the testimony that this road
Is not travelled much and that the
stream, although 1t overflows at
times, soon goes down and unless
that can say that these officers
have not used their best Judgment,
can assess NO fine"
Toward the close Of his remarks,
Judge King made some good roads
remarks. IT do not understand" he
said, why township officers, with
the sentiment so strong for good
roads as It is, would refuse the Of
fer. of the county commissioners to
furnish the steel for a highwater
bridge, If the road is demanded at
that place" This offer had been
made.
A legal question that came up
was interesting and on this point
Judge King declared that he did not
wish to set a precedent. After the
low-water bridge was built, Post
Matteson refused to send
rural mail carrier over the bridge,
although the former bridge had
been q Iow-water structure, and the
mail had been going over 1t for
years. Had Judge King included In
his ruling a decision in regard to
this point as to the government
specifying the kind Of bridges that
should be built, the decision would
have set a precedent that would
have taken an important bearing on
ater cases.
Engle and Minter INTRODUCED tes-
.imony of much more force than
hat they offered at the mandamus
at the close Of which
he court ordered the bridge built.
Within 200 yards of where this low
water bridge in controversy spans
he muddy stream, is high-water
Iteel bridge. The road across the
ow-water bridge is a poor road, all
he witnesses admitted.
No Use for Wife-Beaters
"There is no excuse that / know
IT," said Judge King last night
when c. s. Crawford, attorney for
Mrs. Ella Tonkin, seeking a divorce,
'ffered to introduce a letter that
.ngered Mrs. Tonkin's husband into
her. One letter the attor-
ley did introduce, however, in which
Tonkin wrote to a woman in Kan
as City, saying that he would send
money for her to come here and
hat he would "have the beer ready"
drs. Tonkin found the letter in
Ter husbands coat. He did not
ontest the suit and Mrs. Tonkin
vas given the decree and custody of
he child.
Mr.. and Mrs. Tonkin were divorce
ID once and then remarked.
William Baker was given judy
nent against the Westchester Fire
company for the full
Baker loaned money to
lexington man, receiving therefor
transferred Westchester policy.
'reditors Of the original holder OF /
he policy garnisheed the insurance
but Baker was given judg-
nent against the company for the
ull amocnt, which has fallen due.
The suit Of Richard J. Brown
s. Edward Oesterrich, over q land I