The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1884-01-10
~ IMPoRrANr pEeIsloN.

1 AN IMPORTANT DECISION.
Ruling of the suprems Court in a vgbis
ky Case from PottawafOmie County.
The State Of Kansas vs. A. L. Chandler-Ap
peal from PottawatomIe county; Affirmed
The opinion of the court was deliver
ed by Valentine, J.: The defendant We
convicted at the September term, 1883
of the district court OF Pottawatouis
county, Kansas. OF the offsnse OF selling
Intoxicating liquor without permit, Ii
violation of the prohibilory liquor Law
OF 1881.
The information contained twenty
as u which particular transaction h.
would rely upon for q conviction under
each separate count.
| After the court had instructed the
jury. and they had been in charge a!
their bailiff and not allowed to separate
from the evening of September % until
the morning of September "a, the Jury
stated TO the court that they were unable
20 agree, because one of their number
thought that they ought not 70 consider
| the testimony of q certain witness, be.
cause the court was wrong in allowing
| such witness 10 testify; and thsreupon
the court, over the objection of the de-
| PENDANT, gave the jury additional in
Rtruclions, and to each instruction the
defendant at the time objected and ex-
cepted. The testimony of this witness
related 70 the ninth and tenth counts of
the information.
The jury found the defendant guilty
under the seventh, eighth, ninth and
tenth counts. The court sentenced the
defendant on the verdict, under each Of
these four counts, ~ pay fine of one
hundred dollars and costs: the judy
meats agRregafing the supI Of four hun.
dred dollars and costs; and the defan.
dant was also ordered % be committed
until the fines and costs were paid.
In addition 90 the above senlenees
and Judgments, the court required the
defendant 20 give security In lha cum 81
$500 to be of good behavior for the term
of one year from the date Of said ludg-
ments, Or stand committed until suck
security be given.
The defendant Brings the case TO this
court On appeal. and In bis brief makes
the following points:
"Flrst-We think the court erred
when it instructed the jury the second
time, over the objection Of the appel.
liant. and after the jury had been out two
days
''Second-The court erred in sentanc-
ing the defendant, Chandler, on moee
than one count.
"ThIrd.-The coErt erred in ssAtenc.
ing the defendant to give security 10 the
sum Of $500, TO be approved by the
court. or the judge thereof, or by the
CLERK In the absence of the judge, to be Of
good behavior for the term of one year
from that date, or TO stand committed 10
the jail Of PottoWafomie county, State OF
Kansas, until such security be given
We shall consider these propositions
In their order.
the jury IN criminal case return into
say they cannot agree, II is competent
for the court, OF Its own motion, to give
them any additional instruction proper
In itself. which may b. necessary 70
meet the difficulty in their minds.
State We. Pit;s. IL. A. 343; Hogg vs.
State, Z Ind, 551 Thompson On chaFg.
ing the Jury, sec. 90. p. $50; see also
Foster ". Turner, 81 Kas., /.
Tho instructions given were proper
In themselves. It appears that the de-
PENDANT was present at the time they
were given, and iE does not appear that
the court went beyond the necessities OF
the case in giving them. Therefore, the
court did not err In giving them. The.
defendant was probably guilty beyond
all doubt, and this juror was very IN
reasonable in refusing TO consider the
testimony OF the witness.
2. By the practice everywhere dis
tiRct transactions in cases OF misds
meanor may be joined in separate
counts in one information or indict-
ment, to be followed by one trial for all !;
and q conviction for each OF the several
otfenses the same as though all such of
lenses were charged in the same terms
in separate informatIons or Indictments,
subject. however, to some practical
limitations imposed by judicial dis
erection. Bishop on criminal prose
cutions, sec. 452, and cases there
cited; in re. Donnelly, 81 Kas.;
Macke vs.. Ryan, 81 Kas In
where they are all misiemeanors of
kindred character and charged against
the same person, may, generally, be
joined in separate counts IN one lnfoF-
nation, to be followed by one trial for
all, with q separate conviction and pun
lshment for each, the same as though
all such offenses were charged in sepaP-
ate informatlons and tried at different
times. Of course q separate penalty
should be imposed for each aggregate
penalty for ell the offenses. The ludg.
ment was properly rendered In the pres
eht case. The aggregate amount Of the
penalties imposed IN the present ease,
however, does not exceed the maximum
punishment that may be imposed by
law for one offense of the character
charged in the Information; and, there
fore, the case does not oven come within
the rule enunciated In the case OF the
people ex rel. Tweed VI. LIscomb, 90
n. T., $780, t
8. The authority Tor the orde- Of the
court requiring the defendant to gsTe
security for bis good behavior. Is found
Ia section 242 Of the criminal code, which
reads as folloWs. E E.5
'.E5ec. 49, The court befors which
any person shall be convicted Of any
criminal offenset shall have power. In
addition 70 the sentences prescribed Or
Gathorized by Law, TO require such per-
son TO give security to keep the peace,
or 70 be of good behavior, or both, for
term not exceeding two years, or TO
stand committed until such security be
gwen"
The court simply followed the law;
il simply followed statute which Is
open for every person to read
The Judgment of the court below
will be affirmed. All the justices con-