People's voice. [volume] (Wellington, Sumner County, Kansas) 1890-1917, 1895-09-26

the attendance OF witnesses without
process and advancing fees where
necessary" The Monitor-Press takes
very good care, however, not to at
tempt to show how such a procedure
was intended to, or how it did, re-
duce the expenses Of that trial.
The truth is that this money was to
be used to secure the attendance Of
witnesses who lived outside of the
state, and who could not be cOmpell-
ed to attend by any process whatever
and who we're not entitled to any
mileage for their atten lance if they
did come. Up to date, however, the
public is left in blissful ignorance as
to what Mr., Woods actually did do
with that s22l.64. A very careful
search and inquiry at the Offices of
the county treasurer, county clerk
and district clerk fail absolutely to
disclose any record or information as
to what actually became Of this
money after it passed into Mr..
Woods hands.
But let US presume that he used all
of it for the purposes for which it was
intended. What then? We come to
our second proposition that the pro-
posed use of this money was an un-
lawful one. If these witnesses lived
within the state of Kansas, no money
was needed by the county attorney to
secure their attendance. Paragraphs
$3.50 and 5233 of the General Statutes
of 1889 read as follows:
523o All courts of record having criminal
jurisdiction, shall have power to compel the
attendance Of witnesses in criminal cases
from any county In the state, 10 testify on
the part Of the state or for the defendant,
5233 1t shall not be necessary TO nav or
tender any fees whatever TO any witness sum-
mOned on the part Of the state or on the
part of the defendant; but such witnesses
shall be bound to attend, and be liable for his
| nOn-attendance, in the same manner as il the
| fees allowed to witnesses had been duly PAID
him.
If they lived beyond the boundaries
of this state, they could not be COM
PEELED to attend by any process of the
court or otherwise; neither would they
identified to any mileage fees what
ever if they did attend. Paragraph
3O3S of the General Statutes Ct 1889
provides as follows:
1898 Witnesses shall receive the following
fees: For each mile neces-
sarily and actually Travelled in going to, and
returning from the place of attendace, ten
| 40 cents,
In the case of Myths VS.. st. L. Fl.
s. & W. Rid. Co.. 81 Kans., 232, the
supreme court, in 1884, very pointed
ly decided that there is no provision
in the statutes requiring q witness to
attend court except upon a subpoena,
and that "he is not entitled to receive
mileage fees except for each mile
necessarily travelled in going to and
returning from the place of attend
ance" in obedience to subpoena law
fully served upon him. In that case,
which was civil one, the witness
was subpOenaed in one county to at
tend district court in another. He
attended as witness and travelled by
the shortest route; but the supreme
court say he was not entitled to any
mileage whatever under the law, be-
cause he was not compelled to obey
the subpoena. They close the opinion
by saying: "We think that both the
service of the subpoena by the sheriff
of Bourbon county and the travelling
done by the witnesses were unneces-
sary and unauthorized by law"
Again in the case Of Lyon Co. VS..
Chase, "a KaDs. ia, decided in 1881,
the supreme court says in constituting
this same section Of the statutes in
reference to witnesses mileage: 1T
will be noticed that the statute
does not fix the starting place" but
1T cannot properly be held that the
starting place is any place beyond the
boundaries Of our own state, for we
have no Jurisdiction beyond our own
boundaries. No process from any
court or tribunal in this state can
have any power or force in any other
state. There was no power in this
state that could compel the witness
Chase to come from Boston to En-
poria. Our laws have no extra terri
tOrial force. They do not reach Bos-
ton"
From these two decisions it is very
evident that all such witnesses IN the
Talbot case as Charles Hickman, who
1
lived in the Indian Territory. to
whom H. L. Woods says he furnished
$50, and Richard Wilson, who lived in
Kansas City, Mo-. to whom he says
he paid s25, were not entitled to any
mileage fees whatever. As our
supreme court says, these fees were
unauthorized by law" This being
true did Mr.. Woods, Mr.. Spencer or
any other officer have the right to
pay such fees out Of the county treas
ury?
Paragraph 1896 of our laws refers