The Weekly Kansas chief. [volume] (Troy, Kan.) 1872-1918, 1881-02-17
cosrs IN cRrnIyAL Cases.
Chief Justiee Horton 70 Ex-Aiierney-G General
Davis.

In his First Biennial Report, Mr.. Davis called the
attention of the Governor to defects IN the statutes
as shown by the decision Of the Supreme Court, in
the of the State Campbell, 18Th Nan 4Si, by
which defects great injustice WAS being done the
State Witnesses Sherifs and Clerks Of the District
Courts, in criminal eases, where parties charged
with crime either acquitted discharged by the
order Of the Court, request OF the County Aftor-
ney, for good and valid reasons. Seeing the hard
ships to which State witnesses. shers, and District
Clerks were exposed, by being forced TO discharge
duties without any compensation, which, especially
in the Of Sher;s and State witnesses, require
the expenditure of money, and time in travelling
long distances and remaining from home, and suffer
ing loss in business and time Mr. Davis, IN his Sec
ond Biennial Report, again called attention OF the
Governor TO this subject, and said, Il believe the
Legislature should amend the law, so to secure
the State witnesses the Sheris, aud Clerks of Dis
triet Courts, against loss in such cases-v These
views, now so strongly endorsed by the Chiet JUS
tiee, whose position enables him, preeminently, 10
judge Of the Importance and the justice Of amending
these defective sftntes should have serious eonsid
Grafton by the members of the Legislature
STATE OF KANSAS, SUPRENE CoUIr,
ToPEKA, January -, lsSl.
Hon. Willard Daris City:-DEaR SIg:-In answer
to your inquiry about costs in criminal eases have
this to say: 1t seems TO me but fair and just that in
all criminal proceedings the witnesses and officers Of
the District Courts, including Clerks and Sherifs,
should receive the legal fees for their services al
lowed by statute. whether the defendants con-
yicted acquitted. As the statute now stands.
interpreted by the Supreme Court, great injustice is
done to witnesses and officers, in making provi-
tlOn Tor the payment OF IN cases OF ac-
quittals. When the State compels attendance in its
District Courts, and burdens officers with duties, it
ought TO make definite and certain the from
whence the compensation is to come. To make this
depend upon conviction is offering TO the prrtes, at
least inducement to aid in eonvcting the defend
ant. whether innocent or guilty. Ii is as much to
the honor and dignity of the State, to acquit I'M
nocent person, to convict guilty one; hence the
State should he satisfied, in every case, TO obtain the
truth only, whatever be the result. Then again,
witnesses Clerks, and Sherifs, not the parties
responsible for the prosecutions and if they earn
their fees they should not be prevented from
ering them. because there has been failure in
the prosecution, by the acts of others than ihen-
selves. "ss..,
Sections 81 and 3l2, of the old criminal code of
1853, Comp. Laws 1862, p. 81, in very bung1ing
way, attempted to prescribe that the costs in all
criminal cases should pc paid, whether the defend
ant was convicted acquitted. These sections
omitted. in the revision of 1868, and section of
like import inserted. The Statute should, in my
opinion be amended to correct the omission, by pro-
vdng for the payment of the legal fees, in all
of acquttal.
The statutes referred to, and commented upon,
in case Of State Cambell, l9 Kan. 49, and Com
missioners vs.. Banger, 20 Kan. $50, and without
further comment, call your attention to what is de
cded there. Yours &c.,
Al Hnurpx