Phillipsburg herald. [volume] (Phillipsburg, Kan.) 1882-1905, 1896-01-30

whether my action under my oath al
an officer is popular or unpopular.
should be unworthy of the respect o.
my fellow citizens II we're to try t.
discover what popular sentiment o.
feeling was and then rule according
ly. so that the statements of couuse
upon each side as to what the feeling
liz this way or that | would much
rather not know, much rather not
lest, being human, l might be- iDhu
enced by it,
II have an ambition, it Is that
when leave the position l now oc
cupy, the position in which your suf-
frsge has placed me, that l can leave
it with clear conscience, feeling that
l have acted from honest, oonscien.
tious and sincere motives always. II
| thought that at any time in my ca.
reer from now on / should fail to dc
this, l should resign from my position
this night.
So that l do hope, whatever the
ruling be In connection with these
matters that are of Importance to all,
and involve the liberties of defen-
dants, that individuals will not attri-
butte an evil motive. SO often that it
done, and l have always felt it keenly.
1t is no reflection on counsel upon
one side or the other that they differ
80 widely One insists there is no
proof to sustain a verdict, while the
other insists that beyond any question
there IS proof sufficient.
The court, who, it is presumed,
knows something Of law, views the
testimony without any interest in the
state or in the defense 80 fur as his
determinations are concerned, he
tries, If he be CONSCIENTIOUS, to be fair
and impartial in the admission Of tes-
timony. Yet it seems to me, in this
case, that the court went somewhat
beyond the rules of evidence and al
lowed testimony to go in that there
might be some doubt about on behalf
OF the defense. l do not remember
any on behalf Of the State, because l
would rather err in favor of mercy
and allow a party the fullest oppor-
tunity of showing his defense than to
debar him Of the least possible right,
and was therefore very liberal to-
wards him.
The injured party claims that dur
ing the summer of 1895, and while at
the defendants home, under tho plea
of going to the corn field to get corn
for the horses, and at his request that
she accompany him, that they went
out into the corn field. 1 do not un.
derstand that the proof showed that
she had other knowledge than bis
abatement that that was what he was
going for. 1t was while out there
that she was assaulted,
The assault is charged as occurring
on the 25th of May. The proof upon
that point, as to whether it was on the
25th of May, the 22nd Of May, the 1st,
2nd or Sd of July, so far as the law ID
concerned, is absolutely immaterlal.
That it occurred within two years
next prior to the date of filing the in
formation and that the defendant is
the guilty party il that which the jury
must pass upon. That is the law,
1t is true the defendant denies any
connection with the person. tbs also
true that on cross-examination an
answer made by the injured party
would seem to indicate that he might
not have been alone in his intimacy
with her, if he was so intimate. When
speaking Of the time in September,
she said, if remember the proof cor
rectly, That was the last time he was
ever 90 intimate"
With reference to the earlier time,
I understood her to say 1t was the
first time any one had ever been init
mate with her.
One might speculate upon that fact
and say that others were after that
period. Thai, however, would have
nothing to do with this case under
the age of the girl.
The circumstances along the way
show that at some time from in May
to about July 3D. this party, Mary
Gruber, was over at the house of de-
PENDANT Notwithstanding the denial
of the defendant, whether or not she
was there Is question: OF fact for the
jury to determine.
In this class of cases, the suficiency
of the proof depends on whether the
jury believe the party injured or the
defendant.
1t does not follow that because the
different parties who have testified
stated that they did not see Mary L.
Gruber at the home Of the defendant
that she WAS not there. / could find
a great many more men in Phillips
county tomorrow who could not say
that I was in Phillipsburg today than
could say that I was here. It would
not follow because they did not see
her that she was not there, especially
when they did not go into the house.
1 think of some things the jury
would not be allowed to consider, but
which the court may weigh in passing
upon the motion: How easy it would
be for Ed Sands to disprove the claim
of Mary Grubsr that she was there
How easy for him to bring proof, If