The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1895-06-25
LAW PARTLY LANE
STATE CANNOT TAKE APPEALS TO
TIE NEW APPELLATE COURT.
Decision was Made in the Case of Sumner
County Register at Fort ScOtt--Defend-
ant has the Best of Ii Because He can
Take an Appeal where the State Cannot
lit is a Very Serious Lameness and One
the Legislature Overlooked in Their
Haste to Pass the Law Creating the
Court.

In the case of the state of Kansas VS..
VI. ]. Newbold, which was an original
proceeding by the state against W. j.
Newbold, from Sumner county, taken
to the supreme court on appeal AMI af-
forwards transferred 10 the Kansas
court of appeals, southern department,
central division at Wichita for trial
under the law of last winter creating
the appellate court of this state the
court sitting at Fort Scott on the 18th
Of June decided that the Kansas court
of appeals has no jurisdiction of APP
peals Of misdemeanors where the ap-
peal is taken by the state, although
the court has jurisdiction of the same
questions and the same cases when APP
pealed by the defndant after conviction
This was a case where the defendant
was the register of deeds of Sumner
county, duly elected, qualified and act
ing, as such officer, and while so act
ing he failed to make out and file with
the county clerk an accurate account
and report of the fees charged by him
as such register of deeds for the quar-
ter commencing July l, 1894 and ending
Sept. go 1894, and was indicted and ar
rested for the offense and his counsel
moved the court to puash the informa-
ton for the reason that it did not state
facts sufficient to constitute an offense
and for the further reason that the law
or statute relied on by the prosecution
was unconstitutional, and the court SuS
tanned the notion, and discharged the
defendant and from this order of the
court the state appealed to the supreme
court The court says, in passing up
on the jurisdictional question: Neither
party in their briefs, or otherwise, raise
the question of jurisdiction of the APP
pelate court, but the court must, before
proceeding TO determine any case ascer-
tain whether it has jurisdiction of the
parties and the subject matter. Where
there is no Jurisdiction it does not be-
long to the proper funtion of court
TO give an opinion upon a matter sub
mitted to ii for guidance of parties Of
inferior tribunals evn where the par
ties consent o it"
The jurisdiction of courts Of appeals
are defind in sec. 8, chapter 80, laws 1895:
Section Said courts Of appeals, with
in their respective divisions, shall have
original jurisdiction, concurrent with
and 10 the same extent as is now given
by law TO the supreme court, in quo war
rantO, mandamus and habeas corpus;
they shall also have exclusive appel
ate jurisdiction as now allowed by the
law in all cases of appeals from con-
viction for misdemeanors, in the district
court and other courts of record; also
in all proceedings in error, as now al
lowed by law, taken from orders and
decisions of the district and other
courts of record, or the Judges thereof,
except probate courts. The jurisdic-
of appeals from convictions FOR misde-
meanors in the district and other courts
of record. The limitation in cases of
miSdemeanorS being confined 10 coSeS