The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1922-10-23
CITY-BLITz TRIAL IS ON
Lawsuit to Collect $1,000 on Bond for
H. T. Hanson.

Lawsuit to Collect $1,000 on Bond for
| HI. IT. Hanson.
Trial of lawsuit brought by the
| city of Topeka to collect $1,000 from
I. NJ. Blitz, local jewe1er and former
| professional bondsman, on the bond OF
| H. T. Hanson, was in progress today
| before a jury in Judge George Whit
Hanson and his father, H. p. Han
| son, were arrested April 6, on charges
| of having liquor in their possession
| Altho they appeared in court April ! s,
it is claimed that the case was con-
| tinued until April 81 and that on
April FL young Hanson failed to ap-
pear. Blitz refused to pay the amount
| of the bond, the city claims.
After the city had presented its evil
dence this morning. the jury was ex-
| cused while Bites attorney made a
motion that the defendant be dis
missed on the ground that the city
| had failed to prove a cause of action.
The motion was overruled.
Rad M. Lee, former police Judge
stated on the witness stand that he
son just before police court opened,
and that the latter said he was guilty.
Lee said it was his intention to fine
Hanson 500 and sentence him to
| thirty days in Jail, then parole him
| from the Jail sentence Hanson did
not have the 500 at that time, and
Lee said he told him to bring it in
| Friday, April IS.
About this time, according to the
| testimony, one of the police officers
| intimated that he had evidence con-
| corning Hanson selling whisky and
| the possibility of placing a sales count
against Hanson was entertained.
Judge Lee said, however, that he told
the officers he would let the whole
go over until Friday and take it up at
h. vii oxr Se Lot cd 10
son failed to appear.
S. L. Lashbrook, police judge, who
was then assistant city attorney, teSti-
fled that he never presented any evil
dence in the case to the court and that
| the case was not called in the regular
manner on the day it was set for trial
| The only indication on the docket con-
corning a continuance of the case was
the notation under the heading RE
| marks" as follows: april 81" Judge
| Lashbrook testified that it was Gus
tomary in police court to indicate con-
| tinuances by merely setting down the
| date to which the case had been con-
tinued. Under the entry. "April FL, -
| the docket bears the words: Bond
| forfeited" 1t is claimed that when
! that Judge Lee forfeited the bond.
The technical question of law which
| arose in the trial is that of whether a
bondsman, in the event the accused
| appears for trial on the day set, is
| any longer bound by the bond. The
| defense claimed that Hanson was in
| court on the day set, and, therefore,
the terms of the bond were fulfilled,
| especially if Judge Lee pronounced
| sentence that day. Whether Judge
Lee officially pronounced sentence on
the man probably will be a question
| for the jury to determine. If the SEN
tence was pronounced, it Is argued,
| Blitz would have automatically been
| released from responsibility. If. how
! ever, the sentence was not officially
pronounced on Tuesday, the question
will be whether Blitz is bound by the
bond when the case was continued be-
yond the day on which the case was
set for trial.