The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1922-07-15
GET JUDGMENT IN
tContinred from Page One,

(Continred from Page One.l
| Josephine upon certain phases of the
case. In one of these instances he
stated that the direct charges of cor
ruptness against the mayor had IN
variably been made by, discharged po-
lice officers or someone openly OPP
| posed to him, and that the court had
taken these facts into consideration
] in Weighing testimony against that of
the most reputable witnesses.
He Trusted Police Judge.
THE mayor had appointed a police
judge" continued the opinion, in
! whom he had the utmost confidence
and trust; who was former judge OF
J the court of Topeka and who was
highly recommended to him by mem
bers of the bar of this county. The
evidence shows that as soon as he
learned of the irregularities in the dis
position of cases and that many cases
were not prosecuted to a final con-
cIusion and judgment properly en-
tered, he made a personal investiga-
ton and instructed the assistant city
attorney as well as the city attorney
himself. to investigate Immediately
and ascertain what disposition was
being made of the cases.
He testified that when he became
convinced that the association of Blitz
with the police Judge was 'unwhoie~
some he Immediately asked and re-
ceived the resignation of the Judge.
1t is true IndL LlID6 TO llIIfe White
at the police station the defendant ex-
amined the police blotter to ascertain
the arrests made that day, but this
docket does not disclose the names or
the bondsmen. When his suspicious
were aroused as to the proper DISPOSE
ton of the cases, he instituted an in
vestigation and caused an order to be
made to the effect that the offending
bondsman should not be accepted
upon any future bonds of offenders
a. ~ "a n
not say the defendant wilfully or in
tentionalIy neglected to enforce the
law or to correct the matters re-
ferred to- Notwithstanding the pur-
poses for which money may have been
paid by law violators or any prom
ises made by bondsmen therefore, or
the hopes or expectations OF the Of
tenders resulting therefrom, the evil
dence does not show that the offen-
ders were in fact protected or
granted immunity from prosecution,
or that the officers did not raid or
arrest them thereafter. If immunity
was purchased from the bondsman
it was not granted by the depart
rnent. In other words, sucn offenders
did not receive value for their money.
PenaIized by Fine, Only.
at, is true that most of the often
ders were penalized by the imposition
of a fine only and that they were
then paroIed. The evidence does not
disclose IhaC the 1lneS imposed were
with such regularity or under condi-
tions such as to indicate that a rev.
enue producing system was in effect,
and that the arrests were not made
promptly for the purpose of suppress
ing crime. 1t is barely possible that
the police Judge may have been &C
tuated in some instances at least by a
human consideration that even minor
offenders of the law should not be
incarcerated in the present city Jail,
for the condition of which neither the
defendant nor the police department
are wholly responsible
The opinion states that the court
cannot find that any promises were
made by solicitors for Corwine's cam
paign fund to the effect that they
would be protected if he was re-elec-
ted, asserting that the evidence
offered fails to connect the mayor
with any protection or immunity
promised. It also states that while
cred the unlawful practices Of eXtort-
ing money from those accused of Of
fenses under the city ordinances, or
another man with keener insight or
more experience in such matters
might nave done so, we believe the
evidence warrants the finding that the
mayor was reasonably diilgent in con-
nection with this matter and that he
did not act with a wrongful intent or
doors or condone offenses.
Has Many Duties.
in this connection, some consid-
Grafton should be given to the fact
that the duties of a mayor of a city
of SO, 600 citizens as imposed by the
laws of this state. are very many. As
: