davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13
No. 1885.
W. n. Rust, Appellee,

W. N huSI, Appellee,
Minnie A. Rutherford, Molie \. Marsh,
James Ayres, William Ayres, Sim Ayres,
and Georgia Ayres Edwards, heirs at
law of John Ayres, deceased. late of
Washington County. Kansas, and o. w:
Cook, Administrator of the estate OF
Sarah A. Ayres, deceased, Appellants.
Appeal from Washington County.
REVERSED.
Syllabus BY the Court. Marshall, J.
l. An answer, containing a general de
nial, modified by admissions, but which
does not admit all the facts necessary for
the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle
him to recover. is good as against de-
murrer-
3 A general demurrer to an answer
containing several defenses, should be
overruled. if either defense taken by it
self, or if the answer whole, states
matters which defeat the plaintiffs right
to recover.
5. deed containing this provision:
This indenture to be in full force and
effect from and after the date of my
death. Provided. however. that the said
parties of the second part pay all my fun
eral and other reasonable expenses includ-
ing a bill for medical services due DIR.
w. s. Runkle,''
delivered by the grantor to a third person.
with instructions that at the death of the
grantor the deed should be placed on rec
ord for the grantees, is delivered so as to
vest the title in the grantees.
All the Justices concur-ing.
true copy.
Attest: II. A. VALENTINE.
tSeal.1 Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13

No. 1880.
II. II. Lewis, Appellee,
The Cove County Telephone Company ct
al, Appellants.
Appeal from Cove County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. By the Court Mason, J.
In an action for services performed for
corporation the evidence is held suf-
ficient to support a verdict against it and
it's manager.
All the Justices concurring.
true copy.
Attest: d. A. VALENTINE,
Seal Clerk of Supreme Court
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13
No 1887,
NO. IJ,OOI.
The State of Kansas, Appellee,

The State of Kansas, Appellee,
Paul Roberts ct al. walter O. Mullins,
Appellant)
Appeal from Wabaunsee County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. By the Court. Dawson, J.
1. Where a defendant in a murder trial
fore it is presented in court, the verdict
should be filed and the journal of the
trial and the reason therefor.
2: An Information charging defendant
and place and the common recitals of a
felonious charge, is sufficient although
killing was committed by one of the others
as a result of conspiracy inspired by
where the homicide occurred.
3: Section 125 of the criminal code
felony may be prosecuted in the county
where his part of the felony was com
it is proper to prosecute him in the coun-
ty. where the principal offense was COM
f. Rule followed that the determination
of the trial court as to the propriety and
where competent testimony supports that
decision and where there is no apparent
5. Rule followed that continuance is
not ordinarily demandable as matter of
right because the names of witnesses are
mencement of trial.
G. Rule followed that qualification of
Jurors is for the determination of the trial
court
Z. Where a defendant is prosecuted for
murder upon the theory that he procured
another to do the deed, the sayings and
doings of the other after the murder
admissible to prove the fact that such
other did the killing, the establishment of
that fact being a necessary prerequisite to
the defendants conviction.
6. Where two three persons conspire
to murder another and to shield and pro-
tect each other from discovery, proSecu-
ton and punishment therefor, the
spiracy is not concluded by the homicide
so as to shut out all evidence after the
murder which shows the sayings and do
ings of the one who did the killing, when
that evidence is carefully restricted by
clear and precise instructions to the jury
that such evidence Is only to be considered
for the purpose of determining the guilt
of the one who actually committed the
deed.
8. Where two or three persons conspire
to murder another, there is no privilege
which prevents the admissibility of con-
and his wife against another of the dee
PENDANTS on trial for the murder.
10. 1t is not necessary for the trial court
to give special instructions concerning
evidence given by detectives employed to
IL The cases of The State V. Snyder,
Kan. App. CSC, 81 Pac. 135 and The State
V. Shew, Kan. App $40, 81 Pac. 1877, are
overruled.
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: d. A. VALENTINE
ISeal.l Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13
d. A. VALENTINE
No. 1882.
The State of Kansas, Appellee,
H. A. Yeater. Appellant

H. A Yeater, Appellant
Appeal from Morris County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Johnston C. J.
1. Where a witness teStifies that the
defendant has good general reputation
for peace and quietness and upon cross
examination is asked if he has not heard
reports of particular Quarrels or acts of
violence in which the defendant partici-
pated to which the witness returns a mega
tive answer the defendant is not then en-
titled to offer testimony to show that the
quarrels or acts of violence spoken of
never occurred.
?. No error is committed in excluding
testimony to the conclusions of a wit
ness that certain persons engaged in an
affray with the defendant appeared to wit
ness to be trying to get hold of him to
get him down.
3. The defendant, who was charged with
murder in the second degree and convict
ed of manslaughter in the third degree,
complains of instructions that were sub
mitted to the jury upon the higher degree
of homicide. HELD, that he suffered no
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13
No. 1879.
G. f. Meek, Appellee,

EApIIeIIHI,
Union Pacific Railroad Company, a cor
poration. Appellant
Appeal from Clay County.
REVERSED.
Syllabus. BY the Court Porter J.
l. The measure of damages for the fail
ure of a common carrier to deliver goods
is the value of the goods at the time and
place of destination in the condition in
which they should have been delivered,
and the owner is entitled to recover such
value less the charges for transportation
and delivery.
= On the 31st day of October, 1912, the
plaintiff purchased on the market at Kan
sas City through commission company
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13
No. 1871.
Ponca Milling Company, Appellee

No. 10, 131.
Ponca Milling Company, Appellee,
f. d. Stevens, Appellant.
Appeal from Sedgwick County.
First Division.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. West, J.
A judgment was obtained in county
court of Oklahoma against the defendant
who was served with summons but made
default. A suit on this Judgment was
brought in the city court of Wichita and
a judment taken thereon from which the
defendant appealed to the district court
and answered setting up a claim of fraud
in procuring the Oklahoma judgment, al
leging that he owed the plaintiff nothing
and praying that the plaintiff be enJoined
from bringing any proceedings for the col
lection of such judgment, to which an
swer a demurrer was sustained. HELD,
that the Oklahoma judgment is not void.
but, aside from this, the city court had no
power to grant the relief prayed for and
the district court on appeal is equally
powerless.
All the Justices concurring.
true copy.
Attest: u. A. VALENTINE,
ISeal.l Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13
No. 10, HOT.
Eta Conrad, Appellee,

Eta Conrad, Appellee,
Maggie L. Roberts, Appellant
Appeal from Ford County
REVERSED.
Syllabus. By the Court. Porter J.
l. In an action for Islander plaintiff
was permitted over defendants objections
to offer evidence in chief of her reputation
and character. HELD, that the evidence
was not admissible in chief but since it
only tended to prove a fact which the law
will presume, its admission was not ma
terial.
2 In such action where the plaintiff
for the purpose of showing malice proves
the utterance of words not alleged In the
petition, the defendant may then prove the
truth of these matters under a general de-
NAL or may offer evidence showing con-
duct of the plaintiff which would excuse
or justify the language
g. Where the defense consists of a gen
eral denial and plea that the matter was
standing neither justification nor mitigat-
ing circumstances has been pleaded, prove
the truth or may prove conduct of the
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13
LEGAL.
NO. IJ,UbZ.
The City of Emporia, Plaintiff,

NO. 19,O6Z.
The City of Emporia, Plaintiff,
The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Rail-
way Company, Defendant
Original Proceeding in Mandamus.
WRIT DENIED.
Syllabus. BY the Court Burch, j..
1. An ordinance of a city of the SECOND
chapter 106, section L, providing that the
mayor and commissioners shall have power
to compel railway companies to construct
such viaducts over and tunnels unuer
streets or tracks the mayor and com
missionerS may deem and declare to De
necessary for the safety and convenience
of the public, is subject to review by the
courts for unreaSOnablenesS and II touhu
to be unreasonable the courts may decline
to compel compliance with its terms oy
writ of mandamus
2 A city ordinance relating to the con,
struction of additional railway tracks anu
switches across a street, accepted oy me
railway company and providing tnat lhe
railway company shall restore the street
to such condition as shall not opstrn 81
such condition the city may direct,
does not bind the railway company 70
obey an unreasonable ordinance requiring
1t to carry the street under its tracks Dy
Findings of fact returned by a
commissioners appointed for the purpose
considered, and held that an ordinance OF
the plaintiff requiring the defenuant , 70
construct a subway for a street uhHer ias
tracks is unreasonable and should not
be enforced by a writ of mandam US,
Mason, J., Porter, j., West, J., Marshall'
j. and Dawson, J., concurr1ng
Johnston, c. j., dissenting
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
ISesI1 Clerk Supreme Court
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13
LEGAL

LEGAL.
and 1d the question of conversion was ad-
o. Under a statute authorizing the state
10 10 p3ring an action for the dissolution of
n recei insoisent corporation, and to have a
ton is filed, a petition. was filed and an
who qualified as SUCH pPin a summons e was
issued and served on the defendant cor
No other service was ever a att and
nothing nothing further was done in. the pro.
the receiver is to be regarded as a nuiifty.
r. Where person acting under color
OF OF Ian, an appointment as receiver, under the
circumstances above stated, appears in an
action to which the corporation is a party
and participates with it in a defense to a
claim tha made against it,, a Judgment against
as receiver does not constitute an adjudf,
corporation duly appointed before it was
made prd party to such action.
ton for a loan was made considered lend
Ing the money, but finally refused to do
rate Of interest was not sufficient compen-
sation in view of the risk. and then re
Tor procuring bank to make the loan
at that rate, agreeing to take it up him
doing so, is not conclusive evidence that
he was the real lender and the transaction
g. Where the Pledge of collaterals I'M
der a contract authorizing him to bid at
out notice to the pledgor, intending not to
have them bring the largest price ayaila-
BILE; but to retain secret lien on them;
and causes them to be bid in by a third
person acting solely in his interest, and
afterwards processes not to know whom
the bidder represented, such want of good
faith is shown as to characterize the
transaction as conversion.
z. Under the circumstances stated, the
pledge having professed that the col
laterals had been sold to a stranger, can
not defeat a charge of conversion by show
ing that at all times he had actual control
of the property
8. Where the Pledge of collaterals
makes a sale of them which Is invalid be-
cause not made fairly and in good faith,
the pledgor need not tender the payment
of his debt in order to maintain Il charge
of conversion.
All the justices concurring except Daw-
son, J., who did not sit.
A true copy.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
TSeaL1 Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13
No. 1877.
Amelia EverIy, Appellant,

No. 1Y,1U.
Amelia Everly, Appellant,
J. E. Adams and The City of Gas, APP
pelleeS.
Appeal from Allen County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court Burch, J.
1. A city is not liable in a civil action
for damages for failure of it's Officers to
enforce governmental ordinances enacted in
the interest of the public welfare.
2. The principle of law just stated ap-
piled to the case of a woman who was in
jured on her own premises by vicious
COW which she was attempting to drive
away and which the city officers knew was
running at large contrary to ordinance
prohibiting cattle from running at large
within the city limits.
All the Justices cOncurring.
A true copy.
Attest: d. A, VALENTINE,
[Seal.l Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13
LEGAL.

rendered it immaterial, the verdict against
him not being induced thereby
3. The rule that the discovery OF cumu-
latixe evidence or testimony which by
proper endeavor might have been produced
the trial is not sufficient to require
new trial-fOllowed
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy. -
Attest: ID. A VALENTINE,
ISeal.J Clerk of Supreme Court
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13
LEGAL.

PreJud1ce from the instructions as to the
degrees of the offense of which he was
acquitted, and, further, that there was tes-
tlmony In the case which warranted the
submission of instructions on the higher
degrees.
l. The evidence in the case is held to be
su1I1c1ent to support the verdict finding
the third degree
All the Justices concurring.
true copy.
Attest d A. VALENTINE,
lSeaLl Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13
D. A. VALENTINE,
Clerk Supreme Court.
No. 1895.
Martha Marklinger, Appellant,

No. 1895
Martha Marklinger, Appellant,
The Union Pacific Railroad Company, APP
pellee.
Appeal from Ellis County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. By the Court. Mason, J.
Where flagman stationed at high
way crossing to give warning of an unsafe
condition of the track is struck and
killed by a train, no action against the
railway company account of his death
can be based the failure of the engine
men to sound the whistle, to stop the
train promptly upon being signal1ed to do
so by tOrpedoes placed on the track.
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest D. A. VALENTINE,
lSeal1 Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13
No. 1884.
Frank Foster, Appellant,

The Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway
Company, Appellee.
Appeal from Ottawa County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. By the Court. Mason, j.
provision in a contract for the trans
portation of live stock by railroad, limiting
the time within which actions may be
brought for damages arising out of such
shipment ''or of any contract pertaining to
the same" applies to an action based on
injuries to the person of the shipper while
riding in the caboose under a pass en-
dorsed the back of such contract and
issued a part of its consideration.
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: d. A. VALENTINE,
[Seall Clerk of Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13
No. 1906
Frank Nicholson, Appellee,

| No. 1926.
Frank Nicholson, Appellee,
Tie Atchfson, Topeka & Santa Fe Rail-
way Company, Appellant,
No. 1912.
Annie M. Nicholson, Administrative, APP
pellee,
The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Rail-
way Company. Appellant
Appeals from Reno County.
AFFIRMED
syllabus By the Court. Burch, J.
/, Where portion of line, of rail
road IN process of construction has been
completed, inspected, and passed, and a
speed of ten miles per hour over that
portion has been authorized, the conductor
OF construction train, carrying materials
TO the site of track laying operations ana
running at the rate of four miles per
hour, does not assume the risk of injury
from the sinking of an approach to a
bridge in the completed part of the road,
due to negligect construction and 1nSpec-
ton.
2. The effect of certain evidence stated
and held that the plaintiff was the servant
OF the defendant, who chose to construct
the new line through the instrumentality
of a corporation which 1T created, Of
ficered, and financed entirely within
itself.
All the Justices concurring.
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE,
[Seal.] Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13
No. 1885.
G. NJ. Jamison, Appellant.


George Christman ct al, Appellees.
Appeal from Shawnee County.
division No. II
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Johnston. c. J.
l. In an action to recover verbal
agreement a general denial by the defend
ants is sufficient to let in the defense of
the statute of frauds.
= n verbal agreement alleged to have
been made but which not included in
the written lease of a farm was to the eff
feet that the lessons would provide the
lessee with sufficient water for all pur-
poses for the term of the lease, which was
three years, is held to be within the stat
ute of frauds and void
All the Justices concurring
true copy.
Attest: d. A. VALENTINE,
ISealJ Clerk Supreme Court
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13
No. 1906.
W. T. Dykes, Appellant,

Noah Long, ct al, Appellees.
Appeal from Stafford County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court Mason, J.
The owner of land through which flowed
q small stream, sufficient to supply stock
water for pasture, built a dam to create
pond, chiefly for hunting and fishing, a
spillway being provided through which the
overflow passed into the original channel
This was done with the knowledge of, and
without any objection from, a lower
riparian owner, who expressed a favorable
opinion of the project. During the second
summer thereafter the stream below the
dam ceased to flow. The lower owner
sought injunction against the mainten-
ance of the dam and was denied that
lief. HELD, that in view of all the cir
cumstances the ruling not erroneous.
All the Justices cOncurring.
A true copy.
Attest: d. A. VALENTINE,
ISealJ Clerk Supreme Court
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13
| No. 19.434.
The Farmers and Merchants National
| Bank, Appellee,

No. 10 434.
The Farmers and Merchants National
Bank, Appellee,
George 1. Gam, Appellant.
Appeal from Butler County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. By the Court Porter, J.
In an action for conversion of property
claimed under chattel mortgage the de-
PENDANT was a stranger to the mortgage.
The petition alleged that the plaintiff was
entitled to the possession of the property
at the time of the alleged conversion but
failed to state that he was entitled to the
immediate possession thereof, and also
failed to allege that the mortgagor was
the owner of the property. copy of the
mortgage attached to the petition showed
that the mortgagor was the owner of the
property. HELD:
l. AS against q demurrer and an OBJ
lection to evidence the petition is suf-
ficient to advise defendant of the nature of
plaintiffs claim to the property there be-
Ing motion to make the petition more
definite and certain.
2. Where in such action the plaintiff
has recovered, and the attention of the
court and counsel not directly chal-
lenged to the defects in the petition by the
demurrer, objection to testimony or mo-
ton for a new trial, the petition will be
regarded as amended after judgment.
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: D. A VALENTINE,
[Seal.] Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13

No. 49, 66
J. T. Randolph, Appellee,
g. C. Kensler, as Chief of Police etc. ct
al, Appellants.
Appeal from Sedgwick County.
division No. p
REVERSED.
Syllabus. BY the Court Mason J.
The pleadings and evidence held not to
authorize injunction regulating the
conduct of police officers with respect to a
rooming house.
All the Justices concurring
true copy.
Attest: D. A VALENTINE,
LSeal1 Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13
No. 1928.
f. X. Robbins, Appellee,


w TT Maddy ct al, Appellants
Appeal from Sumner County
AFFIRMED.
SYLLABUS BY the Court. Johnston, T. j.
Promissory notes and mortgage TO Sc
cure their payment were executed al, the
same time In each note it was provided
that if it was not paid when due 1t should
draw interest at the rate of ten per per cent,
The mortgage it was recited that the notes
bore interest at ter. per cent after t ma,
turity and if not paid when due to draw
that the interest provided for from the
date of the notes to their maturity was
nenaIty and is forfeited under the pro-
Visions of section 434S of the General
Statutes of 1902 but that the holder Is en-
titled to recover the stipulated rate after
the maturity of the notes.
All the Justices concurrfng.
A true copy. -
Attest: D. A. VALENTINE.
TSeal1 Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13
LEGAL.
No. 9,426.
L. Hostetler, Appellee,

c. H. Bartholomew, Appellant.
Appeal from Sedgwick County.
Division No. Two.
AFFIRMED
Syllabus. By the Court. Dawson, J.
Where the agent of the vendor of a stall
lion warranted the stallion to be las
sound as a dollar and a sure foal get
ter" and the vendor himself knew that
the stallion was being purchased for breed
ing purposes, and upon trial the vendee
learned that the stallion was wholly in
capacitated for breeding purposes, the
vendee had the right to recind the contract
and recover the purchase money and
freight paid for the transportation OF the
stallion and reasonable compensation for
its care and keep.
All the Justices concurring.
true copy.
Attest: D. A VALENTINE.
tSea1-1 Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13
No. 19,3S1.
e. A Reed, Appellee,


J. r. Dodsworth. Appellant.
Appeal from Franklin County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court West T
In action to recover the balance due
on two written contracts which among
other things contained agreements for the
unconditional payment of money the an
swer pleaded a different oral contract but
was not verified. The evidence of the de-
PENDANT tended to contradict the terms of
the contracts sued and the court sus-
tanned Il demurrer to such evidence. HELD
proper because of incompetency of the evil
dence and because the unverified answer
left the defendant practically in default.
All the Justices cOncurring
true copy.
Attest: D. A VALENTINE
lSeal1 Clerk Supreme Court.
The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1915-04-13

No. 1882
Edith Bessette, F. p. Bessette, Appellees,
John Dennis, Alice Dennis) NJ r. Clark
Appellant.
Appeal from Sedgwick County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Marshall J.
When warranty deed is delivered after
petition attacking the title of the grantor
is filed in the district court of the county
in which the land is situated, the grantee
is charged with notice of the tendency of
the action, and can acquire no interest in
the property against the plaintiff in the
action. (Gen- Stat. 1909, sec. 5679)
All the Justices concurring.
A true copy.
Attest: D. A VALENTINE
tSeal.1 Clerk Supreme Court