The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1918-12-07
Supreme Court Decides Fate
Against Garden City Citizen.
Two Justices in Dissenting
Opinion on Liquor Case.
j. P. PAROLES ARE ILLEGAL
Crimp in Authority Held by
"Judges" Over the State.
Other Opinions Handed Down
by Supreme Court Today.

William Berry of Garden City must
serve year in the Kansas peniten-
tiary because a bottle of whisky was
found in his house one day after he
had been convicted of violating the
Kansas liquor law By a five to two
decision, the supreme court held that
the Kansas bone dry law was simply
supplemental to all the other liquor
laws passed in Kansas in thirty years
and that an offense committed pre-
vlous to the enactment of the bone
dry law could be used as a basis for
sending man to prison for having
liquor in his possession.
Berry was convicted of selling liquor
in 1917, previous to the enactment of
the bone-dry law. In the August fol-
lowing officers found in his house
bottle of whisky. He was tried and
convicted and sentenced to one year
in prison. Five judges of the supreme
court held that Berry was a persist
ent violator. Justice Dawson wrote
dissenting opinion setting out that
Berry should have only been con-
v1cted of misdemeanor and that two
bottles of whisky must have been
found at subsequent periods to con-
stitute a violation of the felony stat
ute. Justice Porter concurred in the
dissenting opinion.
J.P. Paroles Are Illegal.
The Kansas supreme court today
put crimp in the loose assumption
of legal authority of justices of the
peace and probate judges. In grant
ing a writ of mandamuS the court held
that B. Ford, justice of the peace
of Sherman county, overStepped his
legal rights in remitting Jail sentences
of men whom he had found guilty of
selling liquor. In the same decision
the court removed any question as to
the right of the probate judge to
grant a writ of habeas corpus after
efforts were made to enforce the Jail
sentence.
Out in Kanorado township, Sherman
county. Ford had displayed "a not un-
friendly" attitude toward several men
brought before him charged with sales
of liuor. He decreed sentences of
thirty days in Jail for William Hart
stine, John H. Denning and J. H. Jar
ratt. He also fined each man 500
and costs. After this act Ford pro-
ceeded to parole the three defendants.
little later the attorney generals
office looked into Fords record in
liquor cases. Possibly this investiga-
ton had nothing to do with the mat
ter but the records show that Ford
was appointed and he ordered the
three men sent to Jail. Lawyers for
the defendants went before the pro-
bate court and secured a writ of
habeaS corpus, releasing them from
| the custody of the sheriff.
/ In deciding the case today the su-
preme court established a neat. mar
row and clearly lighted path for JUS
| tees of the peace and probate judges
| who handle such cases in the future.
| They told these officials-many of
! whom were not versed in technical
legal procedure-that they should not
| listen too attentively to OverzealouS at
| torneys. The court stated that where
a defendant is held to be guilty of a
| crime and a fine and imprisonment
imposed by justice of the peace, the
| justice cannot enforce his decree in
part and waive the balance. 1t stated
| further that where the defendants
had paid their fine and costs they &C
cepted the order of the court in its en-
tirety. By this token the right of the
probate judge to pass on original pro-
| ceedings in habeas corpus did not lie
| since the entire matter had been dis
posed of by another court. The su-
| preme court granted the writ of man
! damus and ordered the three mer
committed to the Sherman county Jail
Widow Bound by Agreement.
;, Thirty years ago Martha A. White
entered into a stipulation with John
W. White, sr., her second husband
This stipulation provided for the dis
position of their property. Today the
supreme court held that Mrs. White
could not go behind her agreement
and recover portions of the estate moi
allotted to her at that time.
Both White and his wife owned ex
tensive property rights. Each hat
children by a former marriage. There
were no children by their marriage
When White and his wife quarreleo
they decided to call in a couple o-
neighbors and notary public Afte1
an all day conference they signed al
agreement disposing of both real es
tate and personal property. Undel
this agreement Mrs. White could no
receive a full widows one-half as al
lowed under the Kansas statutes.
Nearly twenty years after tn
, agreement was signed Mrs. Whit
filed suit in the Miami county cour
seeking to set aside the agreement
The court held she had entered int
the stipulation with full knowledg
both as to her rights and the propert.
owned by her husband, as well as tn
rights of each of their children. Il
view of this situation the court denie,
to her more than was conveyed unde
!, the original agreement. This decision
was upheld by the supreme court.
S Dean Must Wait for Pay
e The Kansas commission to tn
l Panama Pacific exposition had au
;. thority from the state to employ a
l executive officer and pay him sal
e ary But the commission had n
e right to employ one of it's own mem
l bers and pay him a salary. Unde
i this decision of the supreme cour
today, Henry E. Dean of Kansas Cit.
Kan, must pay back to the state tn
money he received while acting as
n member and also as secretary of tn
n exposition commission.
The court held that Dean did tn
d work of a secretary and probabl
oD pooa =