Volume 39 — Kansas Reports

Error from Atchison Eistrict Court. Action by Kanaley against The Railroad Company, to recover damages for personal injuries. Judgment for the plaintiff for $5,000 was rendered on January 10, 1886. The defendant company brings the case here. The material facts are substantially stated in the opinion.

Error from Shawnee District Court. Action brought November 29, 1884, by Forbes against Caldwell and two others, to recover the N.W.J of the N.W.J of sec. 8, tp. 11,. range 15 east, situate in Shawnee county. Trial by a jury at the September term, 1885, and verdict for defendants. The plaintiff brings the case here.

Error from, Gh'eenwood District Court. The opinion states the case. Judgment for plaintiff, Bell, at the September Term, 1886. The defendant, Sunderland, brings the case here.

Error from Shawnee District Court. Action brought by George D. Hale, as assignee of the Capital Iron Works, against The Topeka Manufacturing Company, to recover the sum of $6,464.58, alleged to be due the plaintiff upon notes given by said defendant and over-due, and also on a book account of merchandise furnished said defendant.

Original Proceedings in Habeas Corpus. The material facts are stated in the opinion herein, filed at the session of the court in April, 1888.

Error from Allen District Court. Action by Cordon against Bogle, to recover money. Trial at tbe March term, 1886, and judgment for the plaintiff for $97.50 and costs. The defendant brings the case to this court. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Brown District Court. Becker brought an action against Langford, and at the beginning thereof filed an affidavit for an order of attachment, which contained nine grounds.

Error from Atohison District Court. This was an action brought in the district court of Atchison county on March 26,1883, by the city of Atchison against William Hetherington and Webster W. Hetherington, partners as Wm. Hetherington & Co., to have certain bonds of the city of Atchison, twenty in number and each for $500, amounting in the aggregate to $10,000, canceled and declared null and void for illegality in their execution, and for want of consideration.

Error from, Atchison District Court. This action was brought by M. F. Hamilton, the widow of M. C. Hamilton, to recover from The Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad Company $5,000 as damages for the death of her husband, alleged to have resulted from the negligence of the agents and employés of the railroad company.

Error from Atchison District Court. Action to recover damages for personal injuries.

Error from Sumner District Court. Action brought by Hamilton & Gormly against Woods, to recover $112.25, which plaintiffs alleged was paid-to the defendant under the following circumstances: Plaintiffs had executed a note for the sum of $217.15, due May 1, 1884; said note before due became the property of the Moline Plow Company, and was by that company placed with the Wellington National Bank for collection.

Error from Reno District Court. Action to enforce the specific performance of a parol contract to convey certain land. Judgment for defendants, at the September term, 1885. The plaintiff Everett brings the case here. The material facts are stated in the opinion.

<p> Original Proceedings in Mandamus. </p> <p>The opinion herein, filed at the session of the court in April, 1888, contains a statement of the facts.</p>

Original Proceedings in Mandamus. Petition for a writ of mandamus, filed in this court on November 9, 1886, by The State, on the relation of J. H. Borders, against Lewis C. Swink, W. H. D. Shockey, and T. J. Barton, as members of The Board of Commissioners of Hamilton county, and Thomas H. Ford, county clerk thereof.

Error from Reno District Court. Action brought in the district court of Sedgwick county, by Mahannah against Burns, to recover damages for an alleged breach of a contract in writing for the sale of certain corn. A copy of the contract is as follows: “Union Township,. Aug. 13, 1881. “Contract made and entered into between Wm. Burns, of the first part, and J. Mahannah, of the second part: Wm.

<p> Error from Labette District Court. </p> <p>Appeal by Briggs & Briggs to the district court, from an allowance of damages by the board of commissioners of Labette county on account of the establishment of a public road over plaintiff’s land. Trial at the November term, 1884, and verdict and judgment for plaintiffs for $72.50. Plaintiffs moved the court to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial, which motion the court overruled. Plaintiffs bring the ease here for review.</p>

Error from Shawnee District Court. On November 12, 1885, George West brought this action against The Western Union Telegraph Company, and alleged : “That the defendant, the Western Union Telegraph Company, was, at the time of the grievances hereinafter stated, and is now, a corporation duly organized and incorporated under the laws of the state of New York, and as such was and is doing business in the state of Kansas, and was and is owning and operating a telegraph line in…

Fror from Shawnee Superior Court. Action by Bare against Stark, to recover damages for wrongfully preventing plaintiff from obtaining the benefit of the exemption law as to his personal earnings. To the petition the defendant filed a demurrer, which the court overruled at the September term, 1886. To reverse this ruling, defendant brings the case here. The material facts are stated in the opinion.

Error from Wyandotte District Court. Action by Keepers against Belli, to recover certain damages. Plaintiff’s petition stated five distinct causes of action. Trial at the April term, 1886; the jury returned a general verdict for plaintiff for $891.65 damages — $200 thereof being upon the first cause of action, $150 thereof upon the third cause, and $41.65 thereof on the fourth cause. Judgment accordingly for the plaintiff. The defendant brings the case here.

Error from Labette District Court. The opinion contains a sufficient statement of the facts. To the petition the defendant Ruarle, filed a demurrer, which the court sustained at the May term, 1886, and rendered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff Township brings the case here.

JEh'ror from Clay District Court. Replevin, by Muldrow against Robbins. Judgment for the plaintiff, at the September term, 1886. The defendant brings the case here. The material facts are stated in the opinion.

Error from Jefferson District Court. Action to recover damages for bodily injuries. Trial at the October term, 1886, and judgment for plaintiff Townsend for $3,500. The defendant Railroad Company brings the case here.

Error from Kingman District Court. Action to set aside a certain conveyance of land. Judgment for plaintiff, William M. Cox, at the June term, 1886. The defendant, Martha A. Cox, brings the case to this court. The facts are stated in the opinion.

The opinion states the facts. Judgment for defendant, Hibler, at the April term, 1885, of the district court of Cherokee county. The plaintiff, Clarkson, brings the case to this court.

Original Proceedings in Habeas Corpus. At the February term, 1888, of the district court of Lincoln county, the petitioners, John W. and N. R. Simmons, were convicted for contempt in disobeying a subpena to attend as witnesses in said court. The opinion herein was filed at the session of the court in April, 1888.

Error from Eyon District Court. Action to enforce a lien for a fine and costs for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law. Judgment for The State, at the January term, 1886. The defendants, Louisa JR. Pfefferle and husband, bring the case here. The opinion states the material facts.

Error from Sedgwick District Court. Action by Isaac Somers against his wife, Catherine Somers, to recover the title to certain land, etc. The plaintiff prayed for a decree setting apart to him as his permanent alimony the southeast quarter of section 23, township 28, range 2 east, in Sedgwick county; that the defendant be decreed to hold the title thereof in trust for him; that she be ordered to re-convey the same by good and sufficient deed of general warranty ; and in case…

Drror from Sumner District Court. This was an action brought in the district court of Sumner county by the Township of Wellington, against the Board of Cou/nty Commissioners of said county, to recover the sum of $739.59, alleged to be due for rent of a certain lot and building alleged to have been leased by the plaintiff to the defendant by a written lease. Afterward one of the attorneys for the plaintiff in the action became the judge of the court.

Error from Brown District Court. The opinion states the case. Judgment for the plaintiff Bank, at the January term, 1886. The defendant Furneaux brings the case here.

<p> Error from Ottawa District Court. </p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

<p> Error from Atchison District Court. </p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

On October 12, 1887, O. P. Bicknell filed with A. Wellington, a justice of the peace of Saline county, the following affidavit and complaint: “State op Kansas, County op Saline, ss.: O. P. Bicknell, of lawful age, being first duly sworn, deposes and says, that one James Blakesley, on or about the 11th day of October, 1887, in the county of Saline and state of Kansas, did then and there unlawfully cut down grass in which he, the said James Blakesley, had no interest or right,…

<p> Error from, Hamilton District Court. </p> <p>Injunction by The State against J. M. Neeland and others-The opinion contains a sufficient statement of the case.</p>

Error from Brown District Court. Action upon a bastardy bond. On February 6,1886, judgment was rendered for The State. The defendants, George H. Wheeler, principal, and Mary E. Wheeler and John W. Pottenger, sureties, bring the case to this court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Error from Republic District Court. Action brought by J. A. Qafford jr. against L. B. Hall, on a promissory note executed by Hall to one Leslie, and afterward transferred by Leslie as collateral security to the plaintiff.

<p> Error from Chautauqua District Court. </p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

<p> Error from Greenwood District Court. </p> <p>The case is stated in the opinion.</p>

Error from Brown District Court. Replevin, by Harrington against Stone. Judgment for defendant, at the May term, 1886. The plaintiff brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from, Einn District Court. Replevin, by B. 8. Flersheim & Co. against A. R. Cary. Trial by jury, at the September term, 1886, and verdict and judgment for the defendant for costs. Plaintiffs bring the case here. The opinion states the facts.

<p>1. Execution — Issuance, Not Enjoined. A petition in error must be filed in this court within one year from the date of the order or judgment complained of; and the issuing of an execution upon such judgment cannot be enjoined after the lapse of one year because a case for this court has not been settled and signed within that time, owing to the fault or neglect of the defendant in error, even though the plaintiff in error might have been misled thereby.</p> <p>2. Case-Made — Suggestion, Not Misleading. The suggestion of the attorney of a party that he may suggest amendments to the case served upon him at a time later than the date fixed by the court for settling and signing the same, is. not sufficient in law to mislead the other party when no effort is made to obtain an order of the court or judge extending the time of settling and signing the case.</p>

<p>Set-Oee, When Not to be Pleaded. In an action brought before a justice of the peace to recover a balance due upon a book account, the defendant filed an alleged set-off “ for damages to her crop by the stock of the plaintiff, in the sum of fourteen dollars.” Held, That as the alleged set-off did not arise from any contract, express or implied, it could not be pleaded by the defendant as a set-off, or defense.</p>

M'ror from Reno District Court. The opinion states the case. Judgment for the plaintiffs, Tallman & Sanborn, at the January term, 1885. The defendant, Shahan, brings the case here.

Error from, Marion District Court. George Sill, as executor of the estate of Daniel Sill, deceased, appealed from the probate court of Marion county to the district court thereof, on account of the refusal of the probate court to allow certain costs and expenses incurred in the defense of an action brought by Rebecca Sill, to set aside the will under which the said executor was appointed. On July 1, 1886, the district court confirmed the proceedings of the probate court.

Error from Sedgwick District Court. Injunction, brought by Robert Black against F. S. Roberts and M. O. Roberts, partners as Roberts Brothers, and C. E. Godfrey, to restrain Roberts Brothers from subletting any portion of the Manhattan hotel, situated in the city of Wichita, and to restrain C. E. Godfrey from occupying the hotel office as a real-estate and brokerage office.

Error from Shawnee District Court. The opinion states the case. Judgment for the plaintiff, City, at the September term, 1887. The defendant, County Board, brings the case to this court.

Error from Shawnee Superior Court. Action to recover damages for the death of James Jacobs, alleged to have been caused by the negligence and carelessness of the Railway Company. Trial at the January term, 1886, and judgment for the plaintiff administratrix for $575 and costs. The defendant company brings the case to this court. The opinion states the material facts. The jury answered questions as follows: “1.

Error from Chase District Court. Action brought by Whitson against Gh'iffis, as sheriff of Chase county, to recover the possession of a stock of goods in which plaintiff alleged that he had a special ownership.

Error from Montgomery District Court. Action by T. F. Hart & Co. against Joseph McCreary, as sheriff of Montgomery county, and his deputy, for the possession of a certain stock of goods. Trial at the March term, 1886, and verdict for defendants. The plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, which motion the court sustained. Of this order the defendants complain, and bring the case here. The material facts are stated in the opinion.

Error from Butler District Court. On the 13th day of March, 1886, Emma A. Allen filed her petition in the district court of Butler county, against H. T. Dodson, the sheriff of that county, to restrain him from selling on execution a certain tract of land situated in said county, and an undivided half of a lot iu the city of Augusta; claiming the land as her homestead, it having been the homestead of her husband before her marriage, and having been purchased by her from him…

Error from Cloud District Court. Action brought by M. T. Greene and others, constituting The Chicago Lumber Company, against Annie and John Bethell, who were husband and wife.

Error from Shawnee District Court. Action brought by E. D. Jones against H. B. Franks, Hattie B. Franks, now Hattie B. Foster, and Mary E. Franks. H. B. Franks has since died, and Mary E. Franks is his executrix. It has been in this court before.

Error from Shawnee District Court. Action-in the nature of ejectment, brought by John R. Mulvane and Joah Mulvane against John Ritchie, Hale Ritchie, John Ritchie jr., and others, to recover certain real estate described in the plaintiffs’ petition. The defendants answered. Afterward a trial was had before the court without a jury, and the court made special findings of fact and conclusions of law, among which are the following: FINDINGS OF FACT. “1.

The following indictment (omitting caption and indorsements) was filed in the district court of Lyon county, September 13, 1887: “At the September term of said court, 1887, the jurors of the grand jury of said county, duly impaneled and sworn and charged to inquire and true presentment make of all public offenses against the laws of the state of Kansas, cognizable by said court, committed or triable within said county, oh their oaths do find and present, that on the 21st day…

<p>Cbiminal Pboseoution — Illegal Arrest; No Jurisdiction. In a criminal prosecution where the court has jurisdiction of the defendant only by means of the service of process in this state procured by the illegal arrest of the defendant in another state, held, that the court has no such jurisdiction as will properly authorize it to render judgment in the case against the defendant.</p>

<p> Error from Atchison District Court. </p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

Error from, Brown District Court. John V. Rollins brought suit against Benjamin M. Dreisback, to recover the sum of $100 for commission due to the plaintiff from the defendant for procuring a purchaser for defendant’s farm.

Error from Wyandotte District Court. Action to recover damages for trespass upon land. The opinion states the facts. Judgment for plaintiff Matthews, at the July term, 1886. The defendants, Arn and another, bring the case here.

<p> Error from Atchison District Court. </p> <p>The opinion states the facts. Judgment for the defendants was rendered on March 25,1886. The plaintiff Challiss brings the case here.</p>

<p> Error from Allen District Court. </p> <p>This was an action brought by the plaintiffs in error against the defendants in error, to subject a certain lot and building in Iola, Kansas, to a judgment obtained by the plaintiffs in error against John Ward. The record shows substantially the following facts: That John Ward and Bridget Ward were husband and wife, and came to Allen county, Kansas, about the year 1877, at which time Bridget Ward had $2,000 in money in her own right. John Ward had no property of any kind. The money belonging to Bridget Ward was by her husband invested in farming lands in Allen county, upon which they resided, and engaged in farming and stock-raising, until the fall of 1881, when they sold their stock and farm and moved into the town of Iola. The title to the farm land was taken in the name of John Ward. After moving to Iola, the money arising from the sale of their farm and property was invested in lots and buildings in Iola, and the title taken in the name of Bridget Ward. At this time they were out of debt. Upon one of the lots so purchased was a dwelling-house, which was occupied by Ward and wife as a homestead. In the summer of 1882, John Ward engaged in the dry-goods business in Iola, and on the 11th day of December purchased a bill of goods from the plaintiffs in error, amounting to $626.57. At the time of the purchase of said goods, John Ward made statements to the agent of the plaintiffs of the amount of property owned by him, and enumerated the property owned and purchased by his wife, Bridget Ward, being the lots and building in Iola. Afterward, on the 22d day of December, Ward mortgaged his stock of goods for $2,800, and in January, 1883, he sold the entire stock of goods to one McNutt for $1,600. McNutt, in part payment, conveyed to Bridget Ward eighty acres of land, paying the balance, $400 or $500, in money. Afterward, Ward and wife mortgaged the eighty acres of land, and afterward sold the land. ■ About the 20th of December, Mrs. Ward traded her homestead for a half-interest in a lot upon which was being erected a two-story store building, and shortly afterward purchased, with money arising from the sale of other real estate owned by her, the other half of said property; and upon the completion of the building, in February or March, 1883, moved into the upper story, and occupied the same as a home. This action was brought to subject this property, the store building and lot, to the payment of a judgment for the goods sold to John Ward. The record also shows that at the time John Ward engaged in the dry-goods business, his wife gave him something over $700 in money with which to engage in the business. At the March term, 1886, trial by the court, which made general findings in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs, and rendered judgment against the plaintiffs for costs. Plaintiffs bring the case here for review.</p>

<p>1. Highways; Report of Viewers; Reconsideration; Continuance. Where a board of county commissioners rejects a report of viewers appointed by it to lay out and locate a public road, such board may at the same session reconsider its action by which said report was rejected, and may continue further action thereon to a future day of that session, without thereby losing jurisdiction.</p> <p>2. County Board — Power to Make Rules for its Government. The board of county commissioners has the power to make reasonable rules and regulations for the government of its proceedings; and in the absence of proof to the contrary, a reconsideration of its action taken on a former day of the same session, on any matter before the board, will be presumed to have been done in conformity with its rules and regulations. (Masters v.MeHolland, 12 Kas. 23.)</p>

<p> Error from, Cloud District Court. </p> <p>Action by Townsdin against Shrader, to recover the value of 412 bushels of corn. Trial at the November term, 1886. Verdict for defendant. New trial denied, and judgment accordingly. The plaintiff brings the case here. The opinion states the material facts.</p>

<p>1. Deed by Minor, Better than Mere Possession. One who claims title to land through a regular line of conveyances from one who is a minor when he executed his deed of conveyance, has a better title thereto than one who merely has possession of the same without other claim of title.</p> <p>2.--- Questioning Title. One who is in possession of land with no right or title thereto except mere possession, will not be permitted to question the right of one who has a chain of title thereto which is apparently perfect, except that one of the grantors in the line of conveyances was a minor when he executed a deed to said premises.</p>

Original Proceedings in Habeas Corpus. Petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed in this court on March 10, 1888, by Samuel I). Cubberly, who alleged that he was unlawfully restrained of his liberty by Alexander Love, the sheriff of Douglas county, under a commitment issued by one Joseph E. Riggs, a notary public of said county. The opinion herein was filed on May 4, 1888.

Error from Sherman District Court. On November 23,1887, the state of Kansas, upon the relation of the attorney general, brought its action against the county commissioners of Sherman county to restrain and enjoin them from meeting as a board of canvassers to canvass and declare the result of the returns of an election held in Sherman county on November 22,1887, to locate the permanent county seat of that county.

Error from Wyandotte District Court. Three eases, involving kindred questions, and jointly submitted to the supreme court upon the same arguments and briefs. The opinion states the nature of each case, and the material facts thereof.

Error from Atohison District Court. This was an action by Frank McCarthy against Mary Smith, to recover the sum of $350.

<p>Equity — Contract to Convey Land — Forfeiture. In a conveyance of real estate made by father and mother to a son, in consideration of a yearly sum to be paid by the son during the life of the father and mother, with a condition underwritten that, should he fail to pay in ■ manner and time as specified, he should forfeit all right and interest in the premises, equity will mot enforce such a forfeiture on slight grounds, and when under the circumstances of the case it would be grossly inequitable to do so. (Land Co. v. Perry, 23 Kas. 140, cited, and approved.)</p>

Error from Elk District Court. Action brought by Douthitt and another against O’Neill, to recover $1,000 by them paid to him as a part of the purchase-price of certain lands to be conveyed by defendant to plaintiffs by a good and sufficient warranty deed; and also to recover interest on $350 thereof from December 22,1883, at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum, and interest at the same rate on $650 thereof from January 20, 1884. Trial at the October term, 1886.

Error from Wyandotte District Court. Ejectment, by Lee against Bermingham. Judgment for defendant, at the July term, 1886. Plaintiff brings the case here. The material facts are stated in Lee v. Bermingham, 30 Kas. 312, et seq., and in the opinion herein.

<p> Error from Bice District Court. </p> <p>On September 8,1885, the mayor and council of Lyons, in Rice county — a city of the third class — enacted an ordinance requiring all druggists within the city of Lyons selling intoxicating liquors to pay a yearly license of $500. This action was commenced by C. A. Cooper and B. C. Ogden, (partners doing business under the firm-name of Cooper & Ogden,) and J. 8. Chase, and i?. L. McJunJdn, against C. M. Rawlins, the mayor of Lyons, and also the councilmen of the city, to restrain the city of Lyons and the mayor and councilmen from the collection of the license tax imposed upon them as druggists. A temporary restraining order was granted at the issuance of the summons, but this injunction was afterward dissolved upon motion. Upon the trial, the ordinance imposing the license was adjudged to be null and void, and the injunction made perpetual.</p> <p>The findings of the trial court were to the effect that at the date of the passage of the ordinance there were six drug stores in the city of Lyons; that four of these lawfully sold intoxicating liquors, having permits therefor; that the ordinance affected no person excepting the plaintiffs in this action; that before the enactment of the ordinance no person in Lyons was required to pay any license tax, excepting auctioneers and dray-men ; that the city of Lyons had about sixteen hundred inhabitants ; that the license of $500 was a greater amount than any druggist selling intoxicating liquors in that city could afford to pay; that the tax was excessive, and also unnecessary in amount for the use of the city; that it threw too great a burden upon a few persons; and that it was unjust- and unreasonable. The mayor and city council excepted to the rulings of the court below, and bring the case here.</p>

Error from Linn District Court. The opinion states the case. Judgment for the plaintiff Foster, at the November term, 1886. The defendant Railroad Company brings the case here.

Error from Marshall District Court. The opinion states the facts. Judgment for the plaintiff Clock Company, at the August term, 1886. The defendant brings the case here.

<p> Error from, Wyandotte District Court. </p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

<p>Pabtnebship— Accounting — Pleading—No Reply — Waiver. In an action commenced before a justice of the peace, in which an answer is filed setting up a partnership between the parties, and in addition thereto alleging the entire business of the partnership, and judgment is asked thereon; and where no reply or other denial under oath is filed, and the action is tried without objection, and as if such partnership was in issue: Held, That the want of such verified reply was waived; and further held, that where in such an action an accounting between partners is had, as if in an action brought for that purpose, the judgment will not for that reason be disturbed.</p>

JEirror from, Decatur District Court. Action by Crowe and wife to restrain Bebb, as sheriff of Decatur county, from selling lot 25, in block 5, in the city of Oberlin, which lot they claimed as their homestead. At the trial in the district court, at the January term, 1887, judgment was rendered in their favor.

Error from, Brown District Court. ■ The facts are stated in the opinion. Judgment for defendants, at the May term, 1886. The plaintiffs, T. F. Sullivan ■& Co., bring the case here.

Error from Lyon District Court. This was an action of ejectment, brought by H. C. Cross against I. D. Fox, in the district court of Lyon county, to recover the possession of lot Nó. 54, on Congress street, in th,e city of Emporia.

JError from Miami District Court. Action to reform a contract for a right-of-way for a railroad. Trial at the October term, 1886, and judgment as prayed for by plaintiffs. The court further ordered that the defendant company accept- the deed tendered to it by plaintiffs for a certain strip of land across the land of plaintiff Alexander Farnsworth; and that he recover from defendant as the consideration therefor, $220, and also the costs of this action.

Error from Sumner District Court. Action by Holliday against Maddox, to recover damages for trespass upon land claimed by plaintiff. Judgment for defendant, at the February term, 1886. The plaintiff brings the case to this court. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Error from Kingman District Court. The opinion states tbe facts. Judgment for the plaintiff Miller, at the March term, 1886. The defendants Rickman .and Arnold bring the case here.

Error from Osage District Court. Action by Mary E. Hall against Paulsen, to recover $300 damages for the loss of a certain stallion sold by the defendant to plaintiff. Trial at the November term, 1886, and verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $171.15. The defendant brings the case to this court. The material facts are stated in the opinion.

Error from Ford District Court. Gray county, in this state, was organized by the governor in July, 1887, by the appointment of three citizens to act as commissioners, and one to act as county clerk, and one to act as sheriff. These parties qualified, and entered upon the discharge of the duties of their respective offices. The commissioners, in August, 1887, divided Gray county into townships, and also into commissioner districts numbered one, two, and three.

Error from, Barber District Court. Action to foreclose a mechanics’ lien. Trial at the May term, 1886, before R. A. C., judge pro tern., and by a jury. Judgment for plaintiffs M. T. & G. Morris, and for defendants Lee & Viele. The defendant Town Company brings the ■case here. The opinion states the material facts.

Error from Republic District Court. Action by Buck against Henrie and another, to recover on an undertaking given upon an appeal from a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace. Judgment for plaintiff, at the October term, 1886. The defendants bring the case to this court. The opinion contains a sufficient statement of the facts.

Error from Atchison District Court. Action by Sigwald against The Church, to recover $1,072.90, alleged to be due plaintiff upon a certain building contract. On October 22,1886, judgment for plaintiff, for $881.43. The defendant brings the case here. The material facts appear in the opinion.

<p> Error from Miami District Court. </p> <p>Action by Pierce against The Railway Company, to recover damages for the negligent killing of his cow. At the February term, 1886, verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $50 damages, and costs. The defendant company brings the case to this court. The facts appear in Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Pierce, 33 Kas. 61, et seq., and in the opinion herein.</p>

Error from Lyon District Court. Action by Pearce against the Insurance Company, to recover upon a policy issued by defendant to plaintiff. The petition stated three causes of action, as follows: First, for $1,000 insurance on plaintiff’s house; second, for $228.25 on personal property belonging to plaintiff; and third, for $256.50 on personal property owned by Geo. H. Edwards. Trial at the January term, 1886. The plaintiff dismissed the second and third causes of action.

<p> Original Proceeding in Habeas Corpus. </p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

<p>Tax Deed, Made after Action Brought — Evidence. A tax deed executed! after the commencement of an action, and not put in issue, nor mentioned by the pleadings, cannot be introduced in evidence on the trial of the case.</p>

<p>1. Libel — Information, Not Defective. An information for libel which charges the defendant with writing, publishing and circulating a libel, which is set out in full, is not fatally defective in failing to state the mode of publication.</p> <p>2. Additional Witnesses — Indorsing Names — Discretion of Court. It is within the discretion of the court to allow the prosecution to indorse the names of additional witnesses upon the indictment after the trial has begun; and it was no abuse of that discretion to allow the indorsement of the name of the complainant, who had sworn to the facts stated in the charge, after the jury was impaneled and sworn.</p>

<p>"1. Default — Pleadings — Discretion of Court. The terms and conditions upon which parties are allowed to file pleadings, when they are in default, are matters resting in the sound discretion of the trial court; and when permission is given to a party in default to • file an answer by a specified time,-and he files a motion to make the petition more definite and certain, it is not an abuse of judicial discretion on the part of the trial court, to strike such motion from the files.</p> <p>:2. Pbaotioe— Judicial Discretion, No Abuse of. A defendant sought and obtained leave to file an answer within a certain time. He filed a motion to make the petition more definite and certain, instead of an answer. This motion was stricken from the files, and the case called for trial, when the defendant then asked to be allowed to file an answer. This the court refused to grant. Such refusal, under the particular circumstances of this case, was not such an abuse of .judicial discretion as to cause a reversal.</p>

Error from Lyon District Court. Action brought by Miller against The Atchison, Topeka &■ Santa Fé Railroad Company, to recover the value of three-head of cattle which he alleged were killed by the negligence of the defendant in the operation of its trains. Trial at the February term, 1887, and verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $120 damages, and $285.45 costs. The defendant company brings the case here.

Error from Shawnee District Court. The opinion states the nature of the action, and the material facts. Trial by the court, which made findings of fact and conclusions of law; and thereon, on December 29, 1886, rendered judgment for defendants Marshall, and against the defendants Mason and the Bank of Topeka. They bring the case to this court.

Error from Franklin District Court. This was an action of replevin, brought by Enos Gaskill against Richards & Curl, to recover the possession of a warranty deed to a tract of land in the state of Illinois, which the plaintiff claimed was wrongfully withheld from him by the defendants; and also for damages for its detention.

Error from Lyon District Court. Oswald Peekerle commenced an action in the district court of Lyon county against the board of county commissioners of that county, and in such action filed the following petition, (omitting title and signature,) to wit: “The plaintiff'in the above-entitled cause, for his cause of action against the said defendant, states that the said defendant was, is and for more than five years last past has been, a duly organized county of the state of…

Error from Rush District Court. Replevin, by Bender against Schmidt and three others, to recover the possession of two mules. Judgment for the plaintiff, at the May term, 1886. The defendants bring the case here. The opinion states the facts.

<p> Error from Jackson District Court. </p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

Error from Shawnee District Court. On June 10, 1884, J. Howell Stanton and his wife made and delivered to the National Loan & Trust Company, in Topeka, a note for $200 due in six months from date, and secured by a mortgage on certain land owned by them in Butler county, Nansas.

Error from Finney District Court. Thomas K. Hanna, Oscar L. Woodgate, and. Frank T. Rhoades, administrators of the estate of Milton Tootle, and. Thomas K. Hanna, Oscar L. Woodgate, and Frank T. Rhoades, surviving partners of the firm of Tootle, Hanna & Company, bring here for review an order made by the district judge, on March 25, 1887, dissolving an attachment in their action against Charles P. Barrett.

Error from Atchison District Court. Action to recover upon a policy of insurance. Judgment for plaintiff Sullivan, on September 9, 1886. The Company brings the case here. The material facts are set forth in the opinion.

Error from Neosho District Court. This was an action brought by Tootle, Hosea & Co., before a justice of the peace of Neosho county, against John Wells, to recover $129.20, alleged to be due as interest on an account. The plaintiffs’ amended bill of particulars, omitting title and signature, reads as follows: “1. Plaintiffs say that they are now, and have been for more than three years last past, partners, doing business under the firm-name of Tootle, Hosea & Co. “2.

Error from Sumner District Court. Replevin. Judgment for plaintiff Lydia R. Mills, on March 29, 1886. The defendant Robert Mills brings the case here. The opinion states the facts.

Error from Chase District Court. Action upon an undertaking in replevin. At the July term, 1886, judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs, Lawrence Brothers and others, for $567.88. The defendant Norton brings the case here. The material facts are stated in the opinion.

Error from Shawnee Superior Court. Action brought by Markin against Priddy, to recover $200 damages alleged to have been caused by defendant’s cattle to plaintiff’s growing corn and grass. On January 14, 1886, the court sustained defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence; and on April 27, 1886, overruled plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, and rendered judgment against him for costs. Markin brings the case here. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Error from Sedgwick District Court. Action brought by Beebe Bros, against The Railroad Company, to recover $500 as damages to certain land which they had rented, caused by an overflow of water thereon.

<p> Error from Atchison District Court. </p> <p>The opinion states the nature of the action, and the facts. Judgment for defendant, Noyes, at the February term, 1885. The plaintiffs, Dobson and another, bring the case to this court.</p>

JEh'ror from Atchison District Court. Ejectment, by Price against Allen. At the June term, 1886, judgment for plaintiff for the recovery of the lot iu controversy, and for the defendant for certain relief under the occupying-claimant act. The plaintiff brings the case here. The material facts are stated in the opinion.

Error from, Brown District Court. At the November term, 1886, the district court found that .a certain will offered for probate was the last will and testament of Robert O. Lawrie, deceased, and that at the time of its execution the testator was of full age, sound mind and memory, and not under any restraint; and the court ordered and adjudged that said will be probated as such, and that Thomas Lawrie, as executor thereof, recover from the contestants the costs, taxed at…

Error from McPherson District Court. Two actions, one by J. B. Hutchinson and the other by his wife Mary E. Hutchinson, to recover damages for injuries received by them, caused by their team of horses becoming frightened at an engine of the plaintiff in error,' in the city of McPherson, Kansas, on the 19th day of September, 1885. By agreement the two cases were tried together at the April term, 1886.

<p>The ease of XI. P. Rly. Go. v. Hutchinson, just decided, followed.</p>

Error from Decatur District Court. Action by Gillen against Peters to recover damages for the breach of a contract to pay the debts of a certain partnership. The petition (court and title omitted) is as follows: “1.

<p>Justice oe the Peace- — Bill of Exceptions — Impeachment of Certificate. A certificate of a justice of the peace, regular on its face, to a bill of exceptions, and bearing date within ten days after judgment, cannot be impeached by a certificate of the same justice made more than a month thereafter, which sets forth the circumstances under which the original certificate was made.</p>

Error from, Bourbon District Court. This was an action for partition of the east balf of section 36, township 23, range 23, in Bourbon county, commenced March 18, 1886, by Nora Phipps against William Phipps, Lilly Van Buskirk, Daniel Van Buskirk, and William H. Van Buskirk. Nora Phipps claimed to be the owner of an undivided one-third interest of said half-section of land by descent from her father and by conveyance from her mother, Margaret Phipps, now Margaret Zuck.

Original Proceeding in Mandamus. Action brought in this court on April 5, 1887, by Cassatt against the Board of Commissioners of Barber county, and others, to compel the levy of a certain tax. The material facts are stated in the opinion, filed at the June, 1888, session of the court.

<p>1. School Land — Sale — Contract — Insufficient Grounds for Cancellation. In an action to set aside a contract and cancel a certificate evidencing a private sale of school land to a settler which had been assigned to another, it was alleged that all of the persons who signed the petition requesting a sale of the school land were not legal householders, and also that the appraisers appointed to appraise the land were not disinterested householders; but it was not averred or claimed that the officers acted dishonestly in determining the sufficiency of the petition, or in appointing the appraisers, nor that the assignee of the school-land contract had any knowledge of any incompetency on the part of the petitioners or appraisers, nor yet that he had ,any notice of any irregularities in the proceedings preliminary to the sale: Held, That the defects mentioned are not sufficient grounds for the cancellation of the contract in the hands of the assignee.</p> <p>2. Settles Upon School Land — Jurisdiction of Probate Court. The probate court is invested with jurisdiction to hear and determine whether a settler upon school land is qualified and entitled to purchase the land at the appraised value, and its decision upon the facts duly submitted, and upon every question involved, is binding upon both the settler and the state unless appealed from.</p> <p>3. School Land — Contract for Sale — Action to Annul — The State to do Equity. Where the state voluntarily comes into court, asking the determination of its rights in a mere business transaction with an individual, the same rules will generally govern as are applicable in controversies between other parties; and before the state can maintain an action to annul a contract for the sale of school land held by an innocent assignee, on account of irregularities or non-compliance with the statutory requirements for a sale, it must do equity by paying or tendering back the purchase-money received under the contract.</p>

Jfirrror from Pratt District Court. On July 10, 1885, the county attorney of Pratt county instituted an action in the district court against Eli P. Williams, and the petition filed contained the following allegations: “ D. C. Lewis, county attorney of Pratt county, Kansas, who sues for the state of Kansas, in this behalf comes now here and gives the court to understand and be informed, that the state of Kansas was, on the 13th day of October, 1884, the owner in fee simple of…

Error from Marion District Court. Action for an accounting and a settlement of partnership business. Judgment for plaintiff Pracht on December 4,1885. The defendant Seiker brings the case to this court. The opinion states the material facts.

M'ror from Harper District Court. In the summer of 1883, Jesse Boyd drove a herd of cattle from Arkansas into Barber county; and in July, C. T. Riggs, sheriff of Barber county, took possession of the cattle under and by virtue of article 9, ch. 105, Comp. Laws of 1885.

<p>Witness — Impeachment by Former Letters of. The plaintiff brought his action for the purchase-price of a lot in a new town, conveyed by him to one of the defendants. The defense was that it was conveyed in consideration of improvements made thereon. The defendants, to sustain their theory, produced a witness who had been the agent of plaintiff in the disposal of the lots. He testified in his direct examination that he had had correspondence with plaintiff concerning this matter; and further, that he first heard that the lot was sold for a money consideration in 1885, though he knew it was conveyed in 1882. Two letters with memoranda attached, dated in 1882, were identified by witness in cross-examination, as being in his handwriting, directed to plaintiff, in which was a list of lots sold, to whom, and for what price, which contained this lot, and showed that it was sold to one of the defendants for $75, and not paid for. They were offered in evidence to impeach witness, and excluded. Held, Error.</p>

Error from Douglas District Court. Action to recover damages for bodily injuries. Judgment for the plaintiff Whipple for $7,500 and costs, at the May term, 1886. The defendant Railway Company brings the case to this court. The facts are fully stated in the opinion.

Error from, Greenwood District Court. G. P. Fudge brought an action in the district court of Greenwood county against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company, in which action he filed the following •original petition, omitting title and signature, to wit: “ The plaintiff alleges that the defendant at the time hereinafter mentioned was a duly incorporated railroad company, •doing business in the state of Kansas under and by virtue of the laws of said state, and…

Error from Gh'eenwood District Court. John Z. Delashmutt brought an action in the district court of Greenwood county against the defendants in error, Nora E. Parrent and three others, and in the first count of his petition he alleged that he had a one-half interest in the southeast quarter of section 10, township 22, range 12, in Greenwood county, which he had acquired by inheritance from his mother, and that on May 8,1871, Aaron Parrent obtained a decree quieting title in…

<p>Reeebee — Findings—Right of Court to Correct Erroneous Items in Settlement. In an action to set aside a settlement between parties on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and misrepresentations, it was found by the referee that the settlement should be set aside and opened as to three particular items, and that the remainder should stand; and this finding was approved by the trial court, and there was evidence tending to support it. Held, That as the findings as to the three particular items, and as to the balance of the settlement, are not contradictory, therefore the district court was authorized to correct the particular wrong, and leave the settlement otherwise undisturbed. The case of Turner v. Otis, 30 Kas. 1, cited, and followed.</p>

Error from Wyandotte District Court. Action brought by Weil against Ryus before a justice of the peace of Wyandotte county, to recover certain personal property; appeal to the district court, and trial therein at the April term, 1886, and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff brings the case here.

Error from Saline District Court. Action to quiet title. Judgment for plaintiff Andrews at the December term, 1886. The defendants, Northrop and another, bring the case here. The opinion states the facts.

<p>1. Justice oe the Peace — Trial—Absence of Defendant. When a judgment is rendered in a justice’s court against a defendant in his absence, it may be set aside under the provisions of $ 114, ch. 81, Oomp. Laws of 1879. “Absence” as used in that section means that the defendant was not present when the trial was had; it does not necessarily signify that he has failed to appear in the action at any time before trial.</p> <p>2. Continuance, Special Appearance to Ask; Defendant, Absent. An attorney for defendant, claiming to make an appearance specially, asked for a continuance because the defendant himself was absent, which was refused, and he left the court. The trial was proceeded with. Held, That the defendant was absent under $114, notwithstanding the action of his attorney.</p> <p>3.--Continuance — Error. It is error for a justice of the peace to continue an action more than eight days without the consent of a party who is present in court.</p>

Error from Shawnee District Court. Action brought by The State of Kansas, on the relation of John Hall, county attorney of Stevens county, against John A. Martin, as governor of said state.

<p>Mandamus — Sheriff to Deliver Office Property to Successor. Where one receives a certificate of election to the office of sheriff from the acting county clerk, after a canvass of the election returns by the acting board of county commissioners, and qualifies by filing his oath and bond with said clerk, said bond being approved by said board, he is entitled to a mandamus to compel the former sheriff to deliver property belonging to the sheriff’s office.</p>

The facts are stated in Telegraph Go. v. Grail, 38 Kas. 679, et seq., and in the opinion herein, filed at the June, 1888, session of the court.

Prosecution for murder in the first degree. From a conviction and sentence as charged, at the May term, 1887, the defendant, J. H. Yarborough, appeals. The opinion states the material facts.

<p>Title, Action to Quiet — Service by Publication — Jurisdiction. In an action to quiet title to real estate, brought by a party in the actual possession of such real estate, against a person who is a non-resident and out of the state, service of summons may be made by publication, and such service will give the court ample jurisdiction to hear and determine the case.</p>

Error from Diokinson District Court. This was an appeal from a decision of the board of county commissioners of Dickinson county, upon a claim for damages for the establishment of a public road through the lands of the defendant in error, plaintiff below. Trial by jury at the May term, 1886, and verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $300.

Fh'ror from Shawnee District Court. The material facts appear in the opinion. Judgment for plaintiff Hazen, at the January term, 1887. The defendant Rounsaville brings the case here.

Error from Cowley District Court. Action for injunction, instituted in the district court of Cowley county by Jacob T. Hackney against J. M. Vawter, S. J. Smock, J. J. Carson, J. D. Lee, Hiram Smedley, T. B. Tandy, J. W. Warner, Andrew Journey, and T. V. Ray.

Error from Allen District Court. Ejectment. The opinion states the facts. On January 24, 1887, judgment was rendered for plaintiff Cox. The defendant Larson brings the case to this court.

Original Proceedings in Mandamus. Action brought in this court on April 9, 1888, by Moser, against Shamleffer and others. The material facts are stated in the opinion, filed at the session of the court in July, 1888.

Error from Sumner District Court. Appeal by Hawk from the report of commissioners to condemn certain lands for a right-of-way for the Le Roy & Western Railway Company. Judgment for the plaintiff for $700, at the November term, 1886. The defendant company brings-the case here. The opinion states the facts.

<p> Error from Svmner District Court. </p> <p>Appeal by Crum from the report of commissioners appointed to condemn and appropriate certain lands for a right-of-way for the Le Roy & Western Railway Company. Judgment for the plaintiff for $2,133 damages, at the November term, 1886. The company brings the case here. The facts appear in the opinion.</p>

Error from Sumner District Court. Appeal by the Le Roy & Western Railway Company from a judgment rendered against it for $800, at the November term, 1886, in proceedings to condemn the land of Sarah E. Hollis. The farm in question contained about 65 acres, and was severed by the company’s track, leaving about three acres in a wedge-shaped strip on one side of the track.

Action brought by Weeks and another, against Sanford, to quiet their title to certain land in Wabaunsee county. Trial by the court at the August term, 1885, in said county, and judgment for the plaintiffs, as prayed for in their petition.

Error from Harvey District Court. The opinion states the case. Judgment for the plaintiff Maxwell, at the June term, 1886, of the district court. The defendant Railway Company brings the case here.

Error from, Marshall District Court. Replevin. Judgment for the defendant Haskin, as sheriff of Marshall county, at the December term, 1886, of the district court. Plaintiff Moxley brings the case here.

Error from Pratt District Court. Action by The State to cancel a school-land certificate because of illegality and fraud.

Error from Pratt District Court. Action by The State to set aside a sale of certain school land, and to cancel the certificate issued therefor. At the April term, 1886, a judgment was rendered for the defendant for costs. The State brings the case here.

Original Proceeding in Mandamus. Petition filed September 27, 1887; answer filed October 17, 1887. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion, filed at the session of the court in July, 1888.

<p>Vendos and Vendee — Refusal to Convey — Interest on Purchase-Money. When a vendor refuses to convey real estate according to his agreement, and keeps the vendee out of possession, and the rents and profits are less than the interest on the purchase-money, the vendor will not be allowed such interest, but will take the interim rents and profits.</p>

The facts are stated in Sunderland v. Bell, ante, pp. 21, et seq., and in the opinion herein, filed during the session of the court in July, 1888.

jError from Atchison District Court. This was an action brought by Charles A. Morrill, doing business as Charles A. Morrill & Co., against Mary E. Smith and John C. Hooper, to recover $180, the purchase-price of ten thousand cigars, together with interest thereon. Trial by the court, and findings of fact and conclusions of law for the plaintiff and against the defendants; on December 29, 1886, judgment for the plaintiff for $200.82. Defendants bring the case here.

<p> Error from Shawnee Superior Court. </p> <p>The opinion states the case.</p>

Error from, Shawnee Superior Court. Action brought on September 5,1883, by Ashmore against MoDonnell and eleven others, in the district court of Shawnee county, and on March 18, 1885, transferred for… Held: that by said service the court obtained no jurisdiction of the defendant, and said personal judgment and order, and all proceedings thereunder, are void. “2.

<p>1. Texax. — Evidence — Finding — No Error. The court below did not commit any material error either in the admission of evidence, or in its general finding upon the evidence.</p> <p>2. Sale — Fraud in Procurement — Rescission—Bona Fide Purchaser. Where personal property is fraudulently procured by purchase from an innocent owner, and the fraudulent vendee afterward sells the property to an innocent and bona fide purchaser, except that the only consideration moving from the second purchaser to the fraudulent vendee is the payment or partial payment of a preexisting debt due from the fraudulent vendee to the second purchaser, the original owner may rescind the contract made by him with his fraudulent vendee and recover the property from the second purchaser.</p> <p>3.--Right of Seller to Rescind — Condition of Subsequent Purchaser. Where personal property is fraudulently procured by purchase from an innocent owner, and the fraudulent vendee afterward transfers the property to some third person, the title passes from the original owner, first to the fraudulent vendee and then to the third person, subject only to the right of the original owner to rescind his, contract with his fraudulent vendee and retake the property; and this only when he places or leaves both his fraudulent vendee and the second purchaser in the same condition they were in before their respective purchases.</p>

Error from Lyon District Court. Replevin by Hathaway, Soule & Harrington against C. M. Henderson & Co., to recover of defendants certain goods — a certain invoice of shoes — bought by one F. J. Doan of the plaintiffs, and by Doan turned over to defendants, with his entire stock, in payment of an antecedent debt. Trial by the court. On January 17, 1887, a general finding for the defendants, and a judgment thereon that they recover of the plaintiffs their costs herein.

Error from, Shawnee Superior Court. Action by Sherwood against The City, to recover damages for personal injuries. Trial at the September term, 1886, and verdict for plaintiff for $2,035; new trial denied defendant, and judgment in accordance with the verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant City brings the case to this court. The facts, so far as they are material, are stated in the opinion.

Error from McPherson District Court. Action to recover upon an application for insurance. To the plaintiff’s petition the defendant Insurance Company filed a general demurrer, which the court sustained at the August term, 1886. Plaintiff Pickett brings this ruling here for review.

<p> Error from Cloud District Court. </p> <p>A sufficient statement of the facts appears in the opinion.</p>

Error from Shawnee District Court. Action to restrain the governor from proceeding with the organization of Greeley county. Temporary inj u notion granted on July 16, 1887. The defendant has.brought the case to this court. The material facts appear in the opinion.

Error from Shawnee Superior Court. On June 11, 1884, plaintiffs commenced their action in the superior court of Shawnee county, against the defendants, to recover the possession of lots 370 and 372 on Jackson street, in the city of Topeka, and also to recover $100 damages for the unlawful withholding of the possession of the same. On July 3, 1884, the defendants filed an answer containing a general denial.

Error from Jefferson District Court. This was au action in the nature of ejectment, brought by Terry Critchfield against David H. Kline, to recover certain real estate hereafter described. The defendant’s amended answer contained a general denial, and also new matter by way of,cross-petition, and a prayer for judgment for. a conveyance of the property in controversy by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff1 replied, denying the allegations in the defendant’s answer.

Prosecution for murder in the first degree. On November 14, 1887, the court sustained defendant’s motion to quash the information filed against her, and thereupon discharged the defendant. The State appeals. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Fh'ror from Harper District Court. On September 4, 1885, J. Paul Gh'ove brought this action against The St. Louis, Fort Scott & Wichita Railroad Company, to recover the sum of $400 alleged to be due him as a retainer, and for certain legal services performed by him for the company in sixteen different actions in matters arising out of condemnation proceedings of land in Harper county, taken for right-of-way in building the railroad of the company.

Error from Ellis District Court. Ejectment, by Cameron against West and another. Trial by the court, at the November term, 1885, and judgment for the plaintiff for the recovery of the land, and in favor of the defendant for the recovery of the taxes. Both parties complain —the defendant West filing a petition in error, and plaintiff Cameron filing a cross-petition in error here. The opinion states the case.

<p>Taxes — Sale for Non-Payment — Purchase by County Treasurer. A county treasurer is disqualified to become a purchaser of land sold by himself at a tax sale. A sale made directly to himself or to a firm of which he is a member is absolutely void, and may be called in question by a purchaser at a subsequent tax sale or other interested party.</p>

Error from Linn District Court. Action to quiet title. Trial by the court, and judgment for the plaintiff Magers, on December 8, 1885. The defendants bring the case here. The material facts are stated in the opinion.

Error from Shawnee District Court. At the April term, 1886, plaintiff Martin recovered against the defendant Building Association judgment for $144. The association brings the case here. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Error from Shawnee District Court. Action by White against Smith and others, for an accounting of the business of the Kansas State Tribune, a partnership theretofore composed of E. H. White, P. H. Smith, Cyrus Corning, and A. J. R. Smith.

Error from Lyon District Court. Action brought by L. A. Taylor against Adam Wenger, Mary Wenger and the Hartford Bank. Trial by the court, which made special findings of fact and conclusions of law. The facts as found by the court are substantially as follows: On the first day of March, 1879, I. A. Taylor and Adam Wenger were equal partners under the firm-name of Taylor & Wenger, and the firm was the owner of a flouring mill in Hartford, Lyon county.

Error from Greenwood District Court. Action by Sunderland against Schoen to recover damages resulting from the sale by defendant to plaintiff of certain land, to wit, the southwest quarter of section 4, township 13, range 16, in Ellis county, Kansas. Plaintiff alleged that defendant, to induce him to buy said land, and with the intent to cheat and defraud him, made to him certain false statements concerning it, defendant well knowing the same to be false.

<p>Costs in Criminal Oases — Enforcement of Payment. The district court has no authority to enforce by imprisonment the payment of costs adjudged against the defendant in a proceeding to prevent the commission of an offense.</p>

On February 27,1888, li. H. Pelton was found guilty and adjudged to pay a fine of $25 and the costs of prosecution, for the alleged offense of canvassing for and selling books in the city of Fort Scott without having a license so to do from said city. Pelton appeals. The material facts are stated in the opinion.

Error from McPherson District Court. Action by Ansel against Olson and another, to recover $49.87, alleged to be due on a certain promissory note. Trial by a jury; verdict for defendants; new trial denied, and judgment rendered against the plaintiff for costs, on May 10,1886. The plaintiff brings the case to this court. The opinion states the facts.