The Topeka state journal., 1921-12-10
MUST RETURN 'EM
Supreme Court Hands Down
Decision in Grocer Case.
Attorney General Must Give
Records to Smithmeyer.
BANK NOT LIABLE FOR SECURITY
Holders of S26O,OOO Worth of
Paper VIII Lose.
Wichita Pawnbrokers Com
PEELED to Keep Minute Lists.

meyer and others records which he
! had taken in suits against wholesale
grocers. In an opinion by Justice
Marshall if is held that under no in
! depreciation of the statutes covering
duees tecUm subpoenas had the at
| torney general right to take books
and records produced by witnesses in
an examination before him.
! Much of the testimony in the whole
sale grocer cases was based on testi-
mony which Hopkins had gathered in
inquisitions. He refused to turn over
to the Theo Poehler Mercantile COM
panY books and records which had
been. brought to a hearing in response
| to a subpoena. In a recent hearing
| in the Douglas county district court,
the defendant companies asked that
the attorney general not only return
these properties but also show cause
why he should not be cited for con-
tempt of court.
Hopkins Exceeded Authority.
Judge Smart held for the grocery
companies but the attorney general
did not conform with his order. An
! appeal was taken to the supreme
court. That court today points out
| that Hopkins appeal was an appeal
on the part of the state and not by
himself personally. For that reason
the contempt application is treated in
| the form of mandamds proceedings
Emphasis was laid on the fact that
there is nothing in the laws of this
| state permitting the attorney general
to adopt the practice followed in this
case. He is ordered to comply with
the district courts decree at once.
Reverses Big Bank Case.
Holders of s26O,O0O worth of ac-
| { -ptances issued by officers of the de-
funct Kansas State bank at Salina will
lose their money. The supreme court
| today reversed it's former decision and
held that the bank is not responsible
for these securities. The question of
| liability of the guaranty fund had
I previously been determined in favor
| of the state.
Numerous suits had been filed
| against Fred r. Fitzpatrick as re-
| ceiver for the bank, to recover on this
paper Recently it was held that the
| acceptances constituted the liability of
| the bank. In an opinion today on re-
hearing former judgments are set
aside.
| There remains much uncertainty as
| to the amount of acceptances actual
| Iy isued or pledged to banks as secur-
! ity 1t is known that claimants and
| IitigantS have presented $3.50, 600
worth of this paper. They now lose
| such money as they may have in
| vested.
Darker Days for Hook Shops.
The supreme court took action to
| make life a bit harder for the gentle
| men pawhbrokers of Kapsas. 1t up
held a broad, sweeping and drastic or
1 dinance by the city of Wichita COM
| pelling pawnbrokers, to keep minute
! records as to their business and the
| description and identity of their Gus
| toners.
Some time ago the Wichita commits
| sioners passed an ordinance compel
ling pawnbrokers to report to the po-
| lice department each day at-noon any
| bits of jeWelry, automobiles and other
| personal effects which might have
been been taken under loans or pur-
! chases during the previous day. The
keeper of the pawn department was
| also required to produce thumb prints
original signatures and detailed de-
| scription of each customer. This or
| dinance had a considerable tendency
| to drive away patrons who secured
| valuable property thru questionable
/ acts and proceedings.
| Louis H. Wolkow tested the ordi-
/ nance. The Sedgwick county district
/ court said it was perfectly valid. VOL
! from his shop. He said he asked one
| woman for a thumb print and she
| threatened to slap his face. This SEEM
| ingly doesn't disturb the validity of
| the ordinance, tho. Justice West, VINO
wrote the opinion today, say the ordi-
able.
Court on the Wa Path.
One who attempts to practice fraud
upon the Kansas supreme court has
few rights that the court will respect,
when it learns of the fraud This was
| the decision of the court in the suit of
/ Sarah F. Craig againS s. J. Craig, ap-
| peaIed from the Rawlins county dis
trict court. Mrs. Craig was an aged
widow at the time of her marriage to
Craig. She had considerable property.
/ Their married life was of short dura
tion, and suit was brought for divorce.
| The divorce was granted to Mrs. Craig
and then appealed to the supreme
court
While the apreal was pending, Mrs
Craig became i'll and later insane. Ac-
cordiug to the charges submitted be-
fore the supreme court, Craig went to
the hospital took his divorced wife
for a ride and induced her to sign a
stipulation by which he would become
the owner of all her property. He
also induced her to destroy her will
which gave her property to a consid-
erable nJTEaber of her friends and rela-
tives. This stipulation was filed in the
supreme court, and under its terms the
court reversed the divorce decision.
4 Responsible for Acts of Bull.
When Kansas farmer owns a scrub
bull he is responsible for the de-
mRanOfr ndDltSs CUSTOMS ana social
demeanor which the animal displays.
+ That was the decision lef the supreme e
court when it affirmed a decision
from the Edwards county district
court, where R. Langhofer secured
! judgment for sT26 because of the mis-
conduct of q bull owned by G. E.
I Matthews.
/ Matthew's bull broused in a pas
ture adjoining the farm of Langhofer.
! On the Langhofer farm were a num-
/ ber of thorQbred, pedigreed young
heifers. One day during a public sale
on. nearby farm it was noticed that
I Matthews's nl-bred and riotous ami
| mai had broken down the fences and
/ was causing much trouble in the ad-
! joining pasture. Longhofer brought
suit. producing papers regarding the
station and high standing OF his prize
heifers. He also supplied evidence to