The Topeka state journal., 1914-01-20
BOTH Are GUILTY.

UUIu NIL UUulJUs
CONTINUED from Pare One.)
ago federal officers raided the Noun
Day offices in Topeka and confiscated
operations. MounBay went to live in
Topeka several years ago. Mrs.
MOunDay is a daug- ter of the late
Judge w. p. Douthitt of Topeka and
member Of an old and prominent
family.
The MounDays' Topeka Operations.
Troubles of the. MounDays started
in June. 1913, following an investiga-
tion by state officials of the American
Sugar Manufacturing and Refining
company project, launched in 1907 by
the two defendants. Through the
state banking department and under
provisions of the blue sky law, as
amended by the 1913 legislature, the
MounDay sugar company was made
subject to Investigations and restric-
tions with which it failed to comply.
Letters written by former Bank Conn
missioner j. N. Dolley to prospective
investors in the sugar company were
unfavorable to the defendants and in
June a suit for $4,000 damages was
filed in the Shawnee county district
court against Dolley. ss-ss
Then the storm broke over the
heads of the sugar company officials.
Hodges and Bank Commissioner Saw
yer, Attorney General Dawson brought
suit in the supreme court to oust tho
MOipDays COMPANY from the state
Almost at the 1ane time the governs
ment began an investigation Of the at
fairs of the sugar company.
/ Investigation developed the fact
that the MounDays were operating
both an Oklahoma and New Mexico
sugar company. Each was independ-
ent OF the other, it seemed, but bore
the same name and no state designa-
ton. The Oklahoma company was
not a going concern and had never
transacted a dollars worth Of busi
ness. At it's head were such men as
Charles Curtis, former United States
senator; Charles Sessions, secretary of
state: A. w. Smith, former pension
agent. and A. B. Quinton, Topeka
| lawyer. The names and influence OF
| these men had been used without
their knowledge and consent by
MounDay and his wife, it was claimed.
! in their New Mexican land selling
venture and hundreds of people
bought contracts for land to be deliv-
cred at some vague and uncertain
should be sold. Orders ousting the
MounDay companies from the state
were issued in July.
July 25, postoff1ce inspectors with
warrants for the arrest of MounDay
and his wife on charges of misuse Of
the mails, raided the sugar company
| offices and seized records, papers and
F! correspondence. Subsequently the
| court ordered the return Of these doc
uments to the defendants and they
| were not used in presenting q case to
the grand jury or in the prosecution
| in Kansas City last week.
Recently suit was filed against Fred
tOrney, in which MounDay sought to
recover $25, 900 for malicious prosecu-
ton. That case, as we'll as the one
against ]. N. Dolley, still fs pending in
the state courts.
1 Records seized by the government
showed that nearly 500 men and wo-
men in all parts of the country and in
more than 20 states and territories
had purchased land contracts. The
land was sold in five acre tracts on in
stallnent payments, totaling $500 a
tract. Some of the MounDay custom
ers had invested $1,000 or $1,000 in
the New Mexican land on which the
defendants led purchasers to believe
they proposed to erect q sugar refin-
! cry, irrigate, build a railroad and sup
ply ample water rights. Customers
were also led to believe that they were
dealing direct with the representatives
! of the sugar trust and bought land at
| $40 an acre which evidence showed
4 the MounDays could not legally sell
lor to which they had no title. Wit
nesses at the preliminary hearing in
iLeavenworth in August testified that
the sugar plantation soil SO lavishly
advertised in extravagant circulars.
was worth perhaps 81 an acre. That
chase of the land by the MounDays
from United States Senator Thomas B.