Search

Displaying 81 - 100 of 575

Separate plea in abatement of defendant, T. J. Pendergast for Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for Pendergast ask the court to remove said defendant from the indictment based upon the evidence provided within.

Date: 
September 9th 1940

Separate plea in abatement of defendant, A. L. McCormack for Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for McCormack ask the court to remove said defendant from the indictment based upon the evidence provided within.

Date: 
September 9th 1940

Separate plea in abatement of defendant, A. L. McCormack for Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for McCormack ask the court to remove said defendant from the indictment based upon the evidence provided within.

Date: 
September 9th 1940

Plea in bar of defendant, T. J. Pendergast for Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for Pendergast state that all alleged overt acts included in the indictment occurred more than three years before the return of the indictment. Thus, Pendergast requests "that prosecution under said indictment be barred and that he be, therefore, discharged."

Date: 
November 18th 1940

Demurrer of defendant, T. J. Pendergast for Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for Pendergast outline their objection to the indictment in six separate points.

Date: 
November 18th 1940

Motion of defendant T. J. Pendergast to quash petit jury panel for Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for Pendergast motion to reject the selected jury because of an order that excluded Jackson County residents from being selected. The defendant attorneys' seven reasons to quash said jury are included within.

Date: 
November 18th 1940

Motion to stay proceedings herein and to continue this case as to the defendant, T. J. Pendergast, for the purpose of permitting this defendant to apply for executive clemency in Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for Pendergast request the court to delay the case so that the defendant can apply for a pardon on account of his previous penitentiary sentence and payment of fine.

Date: 
November 18th 1940

Plea in bar to the indictment, plea in abatement of the indictment, and motion to quash the indictment, and to dismiss the prosecution, on behalf of defendant T. J. Pendergast in Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for Pendergast request the above actions be taken for seven reasons as outlined within.

Date: 
November 18th 1940

Motion of A. L. McCormack to quash indictment in Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, McCormack's attorney requests to void the indictment because the alleged acts took place three years before the indictment was returned, thus passing the statue of limitations.

Date: 
November 18th 1940

Motion of defendant R. E. O'Malley to quash petit jury panel for Criminal Case No. 14912: United States vs. Thomas J. Pendergast, Robert Emmet O'Malley, and A. L. McCormack, Defendant. In this document, attorneys for O'Malley motion to reject the selected jury because of an order that excluded Jackson County residents from being selected. The defendant attorneys' seven reasons to quash said jury are included within.

Date: 
November 18th 1940

A petition in equity and attached exhibits for the case of T. J. Pendergast Wholesale Liquor Company, Plaintiff, vs. Shrader P. Howell, Federal Prohibition Director of Missouri, Defendant. In this petition, T. J. Pendergast Wholesale Liquor Company asks the court to settle a dispute with Howell, who issued the company an order “that [their liquor] permit… is revoked and canceled.” The petitioner reaffirms “that it at all times in good faith conformed to the provisions of the National Prohibition Act.”

Date: 
December 3rd 1920

A subpoena in chancery for the case of T. J. Pendergast Wholesale Liquor Company, Plaintiff, vs. Shrader P. Howell, Federal Prohibition Director of Missouri, Defendant. This subpoena commands Howell to be present at the U.S. District Court in Kansas City on December 23, 1920 to answer for the claims made by the T. J. Pendergast Wholesale Liquor Company.

Date: 
December 6th 1920

An answer to the petition in equity for the case of T. J. Pendergast Wholesale Liquor Company, Plaintiff, vs. Shrader P. Howell, Federal Prohibition Director of Missouri, Defendant. In this answer, Howell denies the plaintiff’s claims and “prays that the decision and order of the defendant as said Prohibition Director be affirmed and that plaintiff’s petition be dismissed at plaintiff’s cost.”

Date: 
December 23rd 1920

One motion and two orders for the case of T. J. Pendergast Wholesale Liquor Company, Plaintiff, vs. Shrader P. Howell, Federal Prohibition Director of Missouri, Defendant. In these documents, the plaintiff motions to reinstate the case in equity and the court orders the same.

Date: 
January 27th 1922

Excerpt of an unabridged print of American Insurance Company, Plaintiff, vs. Ray B. Lucas, Superintendent of the Insurance Department of the State of Missouri, and Roy McKittrick, Attorney General of the State of Missouri, Defendants. This excerpt provides the table of contents for the unabridged case and details the most scandalous criminal activity of the court case. These activities include bribery and illegal money collection involving Thomas J. Pendergast, R. Emmett O'Malley, A. L. McCormack and C. R. Street in 1935.

Date: 
October 19th 1940

Petition for injunction in Equity Case No. 2924: Donnelly Garment Company and Donnelly Garment Sales Company, Plaintiffs, vs. International Ladies' Garment Workers Union (ILGWU) and all members of said union as defendants in this class action. In this petition, the plaintiff asserts the ILGWU has been conspiring to force employees of the Donnelly Garment Company to join the defendant union. This includes employees already part of the Donnelly Garment Workers Union.

Date: 
July 5th 1937

Amended bill in equity in Equity Case No. 2924: Donnelly Garment Company and Donnelly Garment Sales Company, Plaintiffs, vs. International Ladies' Garment Workers Union (ILGWU) and all members of said union as defendants in this class action. In this petition, the plaintiff asserts the ILGWU has been conspiring to force employees of the Donnelly Garment Company to join the defendant union. This bill in equity lists 39 statements from the plaintiff that outlines their case against the ILGWU and its members. The document then lists the requested injunctions.

Date: 
September 4th 1937

Statement from Circuit Judge Van Valkenburgh in Equity Case No. 2924: Donnelly Garment Company and Donnelly Garment Sales Company, Plaintiffs, vs. International Ladies' Garment Workers Union (ILGWU) and all members of said union as defendants in this class action. In this document, Circuit Judge Van Valkenburgh presents a summary of the case and his interpretation of the same. He then outlines the legality of requesting injunctions or for their dismissal. Van Valkenburgh also includes excerpts of testimony from Wave Tobin, manager of the Kansas City Joint Board of ILGWU.

Date: 
December 31st 1937

Findings of fact and conclusion of law in Equity Case No. 2924: Donnelly Garment Company and Donnelly Garment Sales Company, Plaintiffs, vs. International Ladies' Garment Workers Union (ILGWU) and all members of said union as defendants in this class action. This document, created by Circuit Judge Arba S. Van Valkenburgh and District Judges Albert F. Reeves and Merrill E. Otis, lists 20 facts found during the case and 29 conclusions of law.

Date: 
December 31st 1937

Frederick F. Umhey's affidavit in Equity Case No. 2924: Donnelly Garment Company and Donnelly Garment Sales Company, Plaintiffs, vs. International Ladies' Garment Workers Union (ILGWU) and all members of said union as defendants in this class action. In this affidavit, Umhey provides general information about the ILGWU, labor conditions in the garment industry, and other garment associations in the United States and Canada.

Date: 
1937

Pages

KANSAS CITY PUBLIC LIBRARY | DIGITAL HISTORY
Civil War on the Western Border: The Missouri-Kansas Conflict,1855-1865.
The Pendergast Years, Kansas City in the Jazz Age & Great Depression.
KC History, Missouri Valley Special Collections at the Kansas City Public Library.