The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1881-07-21
LEAYENWoRTH AGAIN.

EDITOR NEWS: The commonwealth
of Saturday mentIons that one Green
was arrested under an ordinance of the
city of Leavenworth charged with an
assault and battery upon one Sibley, who
was brouzing around and working up
liquor prosecutions, and says that Green
was discharged. After Judge Crozier's
decision the profession were prepared
to hear almost any report from that little
burg.
1t seems that this ordinance only
Furnishes assault and battery by fine Of
not less than % or more than 500.
The Commonwealth says that "the state
law prescribed for such an offense that
the fine shall not exceed $500, nor the
imprisonment one year. This is a cor
rect statement as any one will see by
reading section 43 of the 'crimes act"
The city ordinance provides for no
Imprisonment. The Leavenworth court
held that the ordinance was repugnant
to the laws of the state, and therefore
void. The Standard says of this:
The clause in the new charter under
which this point was made was proba-
bly, put in by the temperance legislature
to prevent cities of the first class attach.
ing any less penalty to violation of the
| liquor law than was prescribed by the
| state. But in this case they were "hOist
on their own petard,' as this very clause
prevented n temperance apostle from
obtaining what he and his friends con-
ceived to be justice.
am always at loss to know how
accusatc q legal report we get from a
newspaper article. That police court
should have discharged the defendant
because of the popular howl and should
have profited by Judge Crozier's blum
der and not attempted to sustain fool
ish decision by stupid reason. 1 do
not see where the conflict comes in.
Under the State law he might have been
fined 50 little as one cent, it is true, and
under the city ordinance not less than
$500, but this is not the point made by
the court. What that court was exer-
cised about was that he could not send
Green to Jail one year and enter up a
judgment for $500, and this while his
sympathies were so aroused that he was
dying to discharge HIM under any pre-
text whatever.
Suppose the punishment for assault and
battery prescribed by the city and state
to be different; how does that effect the
matter9
There is not well-considered case in
the books that will deprive the city court
of Jurisdiction. The extreme penalty
allowed for liquor selling annotcertain-
ly offset a case of assault and battery !;
nor because the city charter allows the
council to provide for severe penalties
can an ordinance be impeached because
the penalty is mild.
For the forging of U. s. obligations"
our state law provides penalty of i'm
plisOnment not more than ten years.
For the same Offense congress has pro-
vided a penalty of fine of not more
than 5000 and imprisonment not more
than fifteen years.
Some Lycurgus of LeavenwOrth will
yet discharge felon charged with this
offense, because of a conflict of laws"
As to the conflict between state and
city prosecutions there are but two posi-
tons held by the courts, viz: One set
hold that when the same act is in viola
ton of state law and city ordinance,
there can be but one punishment, and
that whichever court first acquires juris-
diction it holds. The other and by far the
ADLER cases, hold that neither Jurisdiction
is exclusive and one may be prosecuted
under both.
When Leavenworth RECEIVERS from its
present severe lego-bilious attack, and
its judges abstain from giving reasons
for their ruling, we shall all breathe
easier. LEX.