The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1916-05-06
LIQUOR HOUSES
Get A SETBACK
IN HIGHER COURT
Decision of District Judge Up
held in Cooley Case.
Can't Collect for Goods Sold to
Former TOpekan.
LABOR LAW CLEARED UP
Supreme Court Rules on Work.
mems Compensation Act.
City Livestock Can Be Kept in
a Barn.
Can't Collect for Goods Sold to
Former TOpekan.
-AB0R LAW CLEARED UP
Supreme Court Rules on Work
mems Compensation Act.
City Livestock Can Be Kept in
a Barn.
tsupreme Court Decisions on page 17.)

(Supreme Court Decisions on page 15o
Dick Cooley does not need to pay for
intoxicating liquor delivered to him by
Danciger Brothers of Kansas City dur
ing the time Cooley was owner of the
Topeka baseball team. The supreme
cour to-day held the sale of liquors to
Cooley an evasion of the Kansas pro-
hibitory liquor law and affirmed the
verdict of the Shawnee county district
court in denying the liquor company
Judgment.
During the time cooley was owner
of the Topeka Western league base
ball club, liquor was on certain occa-
slons consigned by Darciger Brothers
OF Kansas City to themselves IN To-
peka- Here an agent is said to have
delivered the bills of lading to Cooley
who took the liquor from the express
or freight offices
When Cooley sold his ball team, he
is said to have owed the Kansas City
liquor house several hundred dollars.
proceeds of the sale were attached
the Dancigers taking action both for
themselves and other liquor houses
When the case was called for trial. a
demurrer was sustained and Judgment
entered for the defendant
1t was held by the court that the
SAFE was an evasion of the Kansas pro-
h1bitory liquor law. Title to the LIQUOR
didn't charge until the shipment had
reached Kansas. it was held, and for
that reason the sale was made ir Kan
sas in violation of law and the account.
was not collecfable in a court of rec
oro In one of the cases the defend
ant pleaded payment of the accounts
and a jury found for him. II the 9TH
er cases, demurrefs were sustained
"A principal who employs an agent
TO make collections under circum-
stances which make the act a viola
tlon OF the criminal law, cannot main
tam an action for the recovery of the
amount collected said Justice Mason
in deciding the case
Must Get an Order.
When attorneys win fees in divorce
cases, they must get court orders for
their fees promptly if they would in
clude the Zee as a part of the decree
o. divorce That was the ruling of the
supreme court today in a case from
Cove county
Rebecca M. Eisenbise secured a di-
vorce decree from J. NJ Eisenbise. An
attorneys fee of $3.50 was allowed.
The attorney however. neglected to
secure the Incorporation of his fee in
the decree. Now he must bring
separate suit against Eisenbise to win
the $3.50.
More Compensation Cases.
The supreme court clarified some
of the legal muddle surrounding in
terpretations of the workmen's com
I
three cases involving the big labor
law.
In suit by S. o. Galley against
the Beet Brothers Manufacturing com
pany of Wyandottee county, the court
held that an employee who was par
TALLY disabled through injury does not
lose his right under the compensation
law though he remain in the employ
of the company. Another case was
that of J. H. Ruth against the With
erspoon- -Englar company in which
the supreme court reversed the action
of the Wyandotte county district court
In this case the court held an en-
ployee was entitled to injuries which
he received in connection with his
work, but was not entitled to compen-
sation for alleged malpractice of sur
geons employed by the defendant COM
pany. A third case was that of Albert
W. Taylor against the Sulzberger &
Sons company, also of Wyandotte
county. The court in this case held
that a son could not collect compen-
sation for the death of his mother.
even though she contributed to his
support. The woman lived with her
son, who was head of a household of
wife and child. The mother lived
with them, contributed to the mainte-
nance of the home. but was not re-
garded as member of the family.
Horses. Cows and Chickens Exempt.
When a man keeps a horse, a COW or
chickens in his barn, he is not violat-
ing the city health ordinance unless he
persists in depositing refuse in places
that make such an act dangerous to
health or welfare of a community.
! That was the decree of the supreme
court today in case testing the val
idity of an ordinance of the city of
Goodland, Sherman county.
| l. w. Popejoy brought suit to test
| the Goodland ordinance. The court
held that the ordinance which pro-
! hibited depositing of cans. manure,
ashes and garbage on property of citi-
zens was invalid because the town
council did not state whether the de-
posit was a nocuous or inocuouS de-
| post. Enforcement of the ordinance
would prohibit the keeping of a cow
] horse or chickens in a barn. rega rd-
less of the cleanliness of the barn.
| Decides Old Case
The supreme court today decided a
sixty -year-o1d case when it gave to the
J. w Stark estate of Kansas City,
property which they had obtainted
i through accretions. The accretion
| cam with a flood in 1867 when there
was an ice gorge in the Kaw river
/ The land was claimed to have been
i taken from Howe's island and title was
claimed by Hunter NJ Meriweather
| Suits concerning accretions from the
flood and ice gorge of 1877 have for
years been in the state and United
States courts. The decision today
gives the land to the Stark estate
RcCides Railroad Case.
J In reversing and remanoing the
I damage case of o. w Jones against