Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1881-05-12
CIRCUIT COURT NOTES.
THOMAS, JUDGE.

must actually administer the oath to the tax
payer, and II he don't he subjects himself to q
fine.
Again, the Judge called the attention Of the
Grand Jury to the statute in regard to the
public safety. This statnte requires every
keeper OF a hotel OF over two stories in height
to provide and securely fasten in every lodg.
ing room above the second story which has an
outside window, a rope or rope ladder for the
escape of guests in case of fire: the rope shall
be at least one inch in diameter and long
enough to reach to the ground and shall be
fastened near the window. In lieu of this any
other appliance may be substituted that may
be deeDed Of as great or greater utility ty the
fire department Of the town or city. Hotels
Of over three stories IN height shall. be provid-
ed with iron balconies, with iron stairs leading
from one balcony to another, to be placed at
the end of each hall above the third story.
The hotel-keepers shall post notices in every
room calling attention of lodgersro these rope
ladders and balconies, where to find them
and the part OF the room where the ladders
are fastened. Anyone failing to comply with
this statute shall be adjudged guilty of mis-
demeanor and be punished by fine of not less
than $50 nor more than $500. Also, all the
doors for ingress aud egress to and from all
ings, and also of all theatres, assembly rooms,
halls, churches, and all other buildings or
places OF public resort, except churches and
school rooms of one story, shall be so hung as
to open outwardly from the audience rooms,
halls or work shops of such buildings and
places: provided that said doors may be hung
on double jointed hinges, SO as to open with
equal ease outwardly and inwardly. This stat
ute applies to buildings heretofore erected or
hereafter to be erected. Anyone having charge
Of any such room, hall or building who shall
fail or refuse to comply with this law within
six months from tho passage of the statute
(Which was passed in 1871 shall be deemed
guilty Of misdemeanor and flied not less
than e100 nor more than $1,000. The Judge
charged the Grand Jury to inquire whether
this statute has been complied with in Iron
county; and, II it had not, to indict the guilty
parties.
The Grand Jury returned quite number of
bills against parties for selling liquor on SIM
day; all Of town came forward and pleaded,
and it cost them pretty dearly, as the most Of
them we're indicted i've times-the fine and
costs in each case amounting to from SIS to
$40. There were only two criminal trials.
One was the State VS.. Lott ct al. These par
ties were indicted for shooting at a mark
across or along public highway. The evil
dence showed that defendants shot at mark
parallel with q public highway, but forty
yards from it. Tue court held that this
was not q violation of this statute-that
''along public highway" did not mean out
side of and parallel with a publ c highway,
but inside it's limits. Parties might be liabie
to fine for shooting go close to public high
way as to frighten horses, but when indicted
for shooting ''across or along public high
way" the prosecution must show either that
the shooting was across the highway or inside
Of Its limits.
STATE VS.. VIM. b. SMITH.
This case was tried before jury. The de-
fendant stabbed Simeon q. Shuiar three times
on April 24sh, 1850. Defendant interposed
the plea of self-defenc,. The evidence was
very conflicting. The jury, after long time,
found defendant guilty aud fined him s10O.
His attorneys immediately filed = motion for
. new trial; one OF the grounds of which was
that Judge Carter, who assisted MIR. Edgar in
in this: He stated that the statute allowed
defendant to testify in his own behalf, but
provided that the fact that he was testifying
in his own behalf might be given in evidence
to the jury to Affect Ills credibillty. 'Then,"
said he, gentlemen Of the jury, the law likes
the sting Of discredh to detenuant's testl-
m0ny." Judge Emerson at oncs objected to
this statement. Tue court held that the at
torney representing the State had right to
tell the jury what the law is on given point
upon which the court gave no instructions;
but II he undertook to lay down the law, he
must do it correctly, otherwise it operated to
the prejudice Of the accused, new trial
would be granted. In this case to say to the
jury that 1.-THE law fixed the sting OF discredit
to defendants testimony" was not correct
Interpretation OF the statute. The law cid not
fix any sting, but the jury in weighing de-
PENDANTS testimony wefe at liberty to, and
ought to, consider the fact that he was testi-
flying in his own behalf. They might discred-
1t him, but the law did not. But the court
held further that it was plain the defendant
had not been preiudiced by this statement OF
Judge Carter; for If the jury had discredited
defendants whole testimony, it would have
been better for him-for he, in his own testi-
mony. had stated that he caught Shular by the
right arm and hugged him c.ose to himself and
stabbed him three times with knife, Shuler
having q rock in his right hand. This showed
that at the time Shular was stabbed he was
utterly powerless for harm to defendant; and
this testimony of defendant took nearly al
the self-defence out of the case thatwas made
by the other evidence. The conclusion of the
Judge was, therefore, that while Judge Car
ter's remark was an error, Jet IN this case wal
= harmless error and under the rulings OF oul
court DO new trial ought to be awarded. New
trial refused. Defendant then paid the fine
and was released until thirty days before mex
term IN regard to costs.
j. WE'LL Il BRO VS.. JAS. BUFoRD.
Garnishee OF Farris q Beucksmann. In THU