The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1896-07-10
APPELLATE COURT CASES.
Decisions Handed Down by Judges
Carver and Clark.

Two judges of the appellate court to-
day handed down opinions as follows:
CARVER, J.
The Missouri Valley Lumber compa-
ny VS.. John Reid. ct al; error from
Wyandotte county; affirmed.
Valley township, Osborne county, VS..
King Iron Bridge and Manufacturing
company; error from Cloud county; af-
f1rmed.
The State of Kansas rs. Emil A.
Schwartz; appeal from Saline county,
on counts 1, ?, 8, and 4, reversed; on
count 5, affirmed.
Edward Heyman, ct al VS.. Arthur
Simmons; error from LeavenWOrth
county; reversed.
The state of Kansas VS.. VIM. H.
Nield; appeal from Saline county; on
counts L, ?, 3, and 4, reversed; on count
s. affirmed.
The State of Kansas VS.. c. M. Keyes;
appeal from Brown county; affirmed.
The COncOrdia Insurance company
vs.. II. F. Johnson; error from Wyan-
dotte county; reversed
CLARK. J.
The United States National bank VS.
A. 3. POmerOy, ct al; error from POtta-
Watomie county; affirmed
Theodore Wolfey, administrator, VS..
NJ A. Shoemaker, administrators; err
ror from Nemaha county; reversed
E H. Perry & co. VS. Eaves, ct al;
error from Shawnee county; affirmed
The G., B. & O. r. r, company vs.
Frederick Imhoff; error from Washing
ton county; reversed
Edwin Marshall VS.. Weir Pillow com
pany; error from Cloud county; re-
The Niagara Fire Insurance company
VS. H. F. Johnson; error from Wyan-
dotte county; reversed.
Jas G. Frazer VS.. John h Barry,
sheriff. etc: error from AtchisOn coun-
The Mortgage Trust company of
Pennsylvania, vs. Eunice M SoWles,
administrative; error from RnlillpS
county; affirmed
In the case of the state. of Kansas
against c. III Keyes, appealed from
Brown county, the appellate court re
fused new trial
KEYS was arrested for selling liquor
and convicted upon "spotter' evidence
The Jury was instructed by the court
that spotter evidence was to be looked
upon with suspicion Reyes appealed
The syllabus by Judge Carver con-
tainS an opinion that SpOCIer evidence
is perfectly competent and the fact that
q man is a spotter should not be weigh
ed against him simply on that count
He says: 1T is proper to refuse an
instruction which characterizes a wit
ness as a spOtter and which tells the
Jury to take his testimony with ex-
IRENE care and suspicion when there
is nothing in the conduct or demeanOr
of such witness to reflect unfaVOrably
upon his credibiIty, except his admis-
sion that he made purchase of intox-
icating liquor from one repuIed TO De
engaged in the illegal sale thereof in
tending if called upon to testify there
to-
the opinion of the writer, undue agita-
ton about spOtter testimony in this
class of Offenses and a disposition to
magnify an act which may have been
inspired by an honest, unselfish desire
to detect crime, into such proportions
as to unjustly prejudice a jury against
the most reputable and thruthfuI wit
ness.
THE inquiry should be, what charac-
ter of man is he who speaks from the
witness chair? His interest in or con-
nection with the case on trial, his con-
duct and demeanor when testifying
and his general character should be
considered by the jury in passing upon
his truthfulneSS as a witness. And
when as an infOrmer or otherwise he
has a pecuniary or other special inter
est in the result of the trial it is pro-
per that that fact should be called to
the jury's attention But in such cases
as this when nothing has been done to
induce the course of criminal conduct
which is being Investigated and the
witness simply puts himself in posi-
ton to discover the facts, there seems
little reason to single out such act as
deserving of special opprobrium and
as making the person doing it an OBJ
ject of suspicion no matter how good
his character and general standing may
be-"
Co IN Garfield mark this evening ana