People's voice. [volume] (Wellington, Sumner County, Kansas) 1890-1917, 1896-11-05

OInCldl integrity, III IS Tile purpose OF
this paper to take up some OF the SIAN
ders which have come to his ears, and
refute them, and expose the motives
of their authors; and asks OF the pub
lie careful perusal of the same.
In April 1885, Gov. Martin appointed
him judge Of the district court, and
up to that time he had not an enemy
in Sumner county. That appoint
ment was disappointment to some
persons, and from that day to this he
has been pursued by SANDER, never
before equaled in malice, wantOnnesS,
and villainy; and that, too. without a
particle Of foundation in truth upon
which to base it.
PROTOCOL.
The first SANDER which will be no.
ticed, because it is the oldest, was
started by James Lawrence, who is
the prOtOzoa of humanity; the SANDER
was started years ago, and he yet Cir
Culates it.
The appointment as Judge was
made April 10Th, 1895. The May
term of court came on the 5th of May,
only five days after the appointment.
There was a grand jury in attendance
upon This term o: court, which had to
be charged, the charging Of which
anyone knows to be a laboriOus task.
Mr.. Sam. Berry, who was then deputy
county attorney, informed me that
he had, at the instance Of my prede-
cessor, Hon. Geo. D. 0rner, prepared
charge to the jury, and offered it to
me. 1t was taken, examined, found
to be good one, and was adopted and
given to the jury, Among other
things, this charge instructed the
jury to investigate the conduct of any
lawyer who was supposed to be guilty
Of imbezzllng his clients money. On
the 10Th day of May the grand jury
returned into court three indict-
ments, and among them was one
against James Lawrence, charging
him with imbezzling 1851. The re.
turning Of this indictment was the
first information | had as to who Mr..
Berry had in view when he prepared
the charge, for neither the prosecuting
officer, witness nor jurymen had ever
mentioned the matter to me. So soon
as it became known that he was in
dicted, Lawrence started the inta-
nous SANDER to the effect that l had
procured his indictment to prevent
him becoming candidate for Judge
against me, and this falsehoOd he
still repeats.
That he was guilty as charged, his
subsequent conduct proves, Did he
demand trial and acquittal, as an
honest man would have done? Not
by any means. He interposed a mo-
tiOn to quash the Indictment. the
legal effect Of which was to confess
the fact" but plead the statute Of
limitation. The statute Of limitation
applicable to the crime, provides, that
the indictment must be found within
two years from the committing Of the
Ofense. But another criminal statute
provides, "If any person who has COM
mitted an offense, cOnceals the fact
Of the crime, the time OF concealment
is not to be included In computing
the period Of limitation" The in
dlctInent against Lawrence charged
that the money was embezzled in
March, 1882, but the indictment was
not found till May 10th, 1885, and on
the face Of the indictment it appeared
that the statute Of Limitation applied,
and the motion to Quash was sustained.
Had the ind .~"lt charged the fact
Of the concealment OF the crime for
two years, which it did not, it would
have been good. Had he not plead
the statute Of limitation he would
have gone to the penitentiary. For
further facts see court record and
Joseph Duncan at Conway Springs.
RHIZOPoD.
Out OF sympathy for the protocol,
a. a. richards, who is the Rhizopod
Of the class, has for years mallpned
me. His antipathy toward me started
with the above SANDER, and has in.
creased in proportion to the difficulty
he has encountered 10 my court, in
prosecuting his quit claim titles, and
10 defending cases against himself,
and reached its final elimination
when l was called as witness, with
a number OF Others, viz: Chas, Will.
sic, ]. W. haughey, c. E. Elliott, W.