The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1921-03-12
James A. Davis No Longer
Mayor of Leavenworth.
Action Taken Today by Kansas
Supreme Court.
HIS SECOND TIME UNDER FIRE
Present Suit Filed Recently by
Attorney General.
Innocent Purchasers of Motor
Cars To Be Protected.

Mayor James A. (Big Hearted
Jim) Davis of Leavenworth, was to-
day suspended under an order of the
supreme court. Davis was recently
cited for custer in the supreme court.
1t is the second time the Leavenworth
mayor has been under fire in the su-
preme court in the last few years.
Suit Brought Some Time Ago.
Several years ago S. N. Brewster, as
attorney general, brought suit to oust
Davis because of law violations in
Leavenworth. While the case was
pending Davis resigned. He was later
reelected. The present suit was filed
a few weeks ago and alleged that Da-
, Wis permitted the sale of liquor, gam
bling and operation of immoral
houses.
/ Preliminary arguments in the ous-
ter suit were heard by the supreme
court this week. Pending further in
vestigation and final decision in the
case the Leavenworth mayor was to-
day suspended under order of the
court.
Protect Innocent Purchasers.
Innocent purchasers of motor cars
were protected under decision of the
supreme court today in an appeal
from the Wyandotte district court. The
court denied to the Missouri Finance
Corporation right to replevin cars sold
in this state by T. E. Denny. an agent
and salesman. who is alleged to have
sold cars belonging to other persons.
Denny opened up a garage in Inde-
pendence without capital and went to
the Hathaway company for cars. An
arrangement was made thru the Mis-
souri, Finance corporation for financ-
~ - lit L.,
with all charges paid and with the title
| remaining in the name of the Kansas
| City firms. Three Of the cars sc
shipped were sold to innocent pur-
| chasers and when Denny failed to pay
| the Missouri firms they sought to re-
plevin the cars, despite the fact that
the option to purchase and the stor-
age receipts showing that Denny did
not own the cars were not filed for
| record. In his opinion Justice Burch
said: ss----=>-
at was financing a tradesman and
| the instruments employed were instru-
ments of security The plaintiff staked
the local dealer for the distinct pur.
] pose of enabling him to sell automo-
/ biles. To that end the plaintiff in
vested him with possession, apparent
ownership, and apparent right to sell
| The end and aim of the baiiment was
that the bailee might sell, and no pa
| Pei SOiilI INduCS " lllloW IlSh VI liz
bailee's fidelity upon the buying pub
lie may be tolerated"
| Evidence Must Be Positive.
| When a jury answers a special ques.
tion with the statement, I'VE do MOI
know" the findings are held by the
supreme court to be construed agains
a plaintiff That was the decision OF
the supreme court today in the case Of
Beulah Wall against the Union Trac
ton company, appealed from the
Montgomery county district court.
! County Exceeded Authority.
! The Barton county commissioner.
! had no authority to buy $68,O0O worth
| of road building machinery and charge
| the total cost to a. five mile project
| the supreme court held today in deny
ing a writ of mandamus to compel the
| county clerk to register the bonds. A
| clerk cannot be required to perform &
ministerial duty when it's performanc,
| is necessary to give effect on the un
lawful act of the board, according tt
| the decision. The court held that thu
| official action of M. W. Watson, stat.
| highway engineer, in refusing to sane
ton such transactions is not control
liable by mandamus, unless it is shown
his estimates were Incorrectly calcu
lated