The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1919-04-12
Patron Awarded $66,O79.44 in
the Supreme Court.
Charged That Gas Was With
held To Force Higher Rate.
SHAWNEE DECISION UPHELD
Opinion Handed Down in To-
peka Paving Case Today.
Mrs. Burton Loses Her Case
Against State Grange.

withholds an adequate gas supply
! from a patron and thereby forces &C
| ceptance of a higher rate. the gas
company is liable for damages. That
was the decision of the supreme court
| today in affirming judgment for
$66,079.44 which was rendered in IA
vor of the Ludowici-C eladon Co.
against the CoffeyviIle Gas & Fuel Co.
The case came to the supreme court
on an appeal from the Montgomery
county district court.
In 1909 the Coffeyville- Gas Co. en-
tered into a contract to furnish the
plaintiff company gas for manufac-
turing purposes for a period of years.
The rate was to be three cents a thou
sand feet until 1914 when the rate
was to be raised to four cents. In
1911. it was charged the Coffeyville
company entered into a conspiracy
with the Kansas Natural Gas com
pany which resulted in reducing the
supply to the Ludowici-Celadon COM
pany to such an extent that it was un-
| able to operate it's factory at capacity.
Sought Higher Rate.
| 1t was the purpose of the gas COM
| pany, the plaintiff charged, to force
| acceptance of higher rate. This was
done. The manufacturing company
accepted a contract for cents. Still
there was not enough gas. The man
| ufacturers charged that an effort was
made to force them to pay 20 cents,
| the commercial rate. Oil burners
were installed and much expense in
| Cured in addition to heavy losses in
the operation of the plant. Suit was
filed for $79,577.22 and a judgment
rendered for S66,079.44. OF this
amount s14,006 has been Withdrawn.
| The gas company appealed. The gas
company fought the case on the
ground that it was unable to furnish
an adequate gas supply owing to
shortage of fuel. 1t denied the charge
| that it had entered into conspiracy
to force a higher rate.
Affirms Root Case.
The supreme court today affirmed
the decision of the Shawnee county
district court in the case which Laura
I d. Root and others filed against the
| city of Topeka in an effort to block
approval of paving petitions. 1t was
| the contention of the plaintiffs that
| the paving was not necessary and that
existing paving was in good condition
In spite of the Semonstrance the paw
| ing was ordered and suit was filed in
the district court The supreme court
held that the contention of the plain
tiffs was merely a question of individ-
] ual judgment
Father May Recover Property.
! Under the ruling of the state SUI
preme court today, parent may re-
cover property set aside under a di-
vorce decree for the education and
] support of minor children. Such re-
coyery can come, however. only after
| the youngest of the children has at
| tanned the age of majority.
I Property owned by John Smith of
Miami county was set aside for sup
port of his minor children when a di-
vorce decree was granted his wife in
1902. Custody of the children had
| been given the wife. When the young
est child attained majority. Smith
brought suit to recover his full pos
session of the property set aside under
the decree. The supreme court today
held for Smith.
Mrs. Burton Loses Suit.
The executive committee of the
! Kansas State grange had ample au-
thority to suspend and finally expel
an officer of the organization. This
was the decision of the Kansas su-
| preme court in the suit of Ella s.
Burton of. Topeka against w. P. Dick
son and members of the committee of
the grange.
Mrs. Burton was lecturer for the
grange. She has been prominent in
politics for many years and sought
various state offices. Mrs. Burton
committed some act of which a MEM
Der of the grange did not approve. He
filed charges against her and the
executive committee suspended her
pending an investigation. Later a spe-
cial committee was appointed to try
her. She refused to appear before the
committee and was not given an op-
portunity to appear at state meeting
of the grange and tell her side of the
story. The committee voted for ex-
pulsion. This was approved by the
executive committee.
Suit was brought by Mrs. Burton to
prevent her custer and the Cowley
county district court and the supreme
court held that she had no right to
question the action of the committee
or of the order.
Notary Is Not Liable.
A notary public must exercise care
in knowing the identity of a. person
who acknowledges a deed before him.
Yet when he has used reasonable dill
gence he Is not a guarantor or insurer
of the paper acknowledged before him.
This was the decision of the ssI-
preme court in the suit of A J. Bell
port, jr., against ]. c. Harkins and
the Kansas Casualty Co. of Wichita,
appealed from Sedgwick county. "A
man supposed to be Amandus H.
Barndt called on Harkins and ar
ranged for the trade of some land,
which Barndt claimed to own. Har-
lins, being a real estate agent as well
as a notary. arranged the deal and
acknowledged the deed given by
Barndt to the land. Later it deveI-
oped that the deed was forged. Bell
port brought suit against the notary
and the surety company to collect for
the property which lBellport had given
in exchange for the forged deed The
lower court held that notary should
be held liable for damages, because
he had not taken proper steps to iden-
| tify the man who made the deed. The
4 supreme court reversed the lower
court and held that the notary is re-
quired to exercise extreme diligence
in identifying anyone who acknowl-
/ edges deed. Beyond that he is not
liable.
Phone Company Need Not Pay.
A telephone COMPANY which allows