The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1896-05-10

ClOck-Denntson ts1ves Oplnfou.
The court Of appeals in an opinion
| handed down yesterday, decided that
members of the legislature are not
amendable TO civil process while sit
| ting in an Impeachment trial.
Senator Senior figures in the case
which is from Coffey county. In 1891,
Senior was senator in Topeka, sitting
on the impeachment case of Thecdosius
Botkin. He rented house from Mrs.
Cook. Senior claimed the house was
badly in need Of repairs. Mrs. Cook
charged Senior with getting it in that
shape This Senior denied with the ex-
ception that one of his children did pull
tine hands off the clock.
Mrs. Cook sued Senior for damages.
One day as Senior came down the steps
Of the state house, summons was
served on him, to appear in justice
court. He paid no attention TO this.
| Then Mrs. Cook took a judgment
against him and execution was issued
against Seniors property. Then he
| rushed around and got an injunction
against the execution.
The Injunction was tried in the dis
trict court and Senior was upheld. The
case was brought 10 the court OF ap-
! peals and Senior is again victorious
over the rapacious onslaught of the To-
peka people who live on legislators.
Judge Dennison rendered the opinion
and among other things he said: "All
impeachments shall be tried by the SEN
ate. Not by the individual members
thereof but by the senate. 1t must be
IL q Re q
stitutional branches Of the legislature.
The public have the same right to the
services of each individual member of
the senate during its session as court
of Impeachment as during its legislat-
i've session"
Judge Dennison, and the whole court
concurs, decides that the constitution
protects the legislator from civil pro-
cess and that a member of an impeach-
ment court is still a member of the leg
islature.
Mrs. Cooks attorneys claimed that
the exemption clause of the constitution
provided merely q personl privilege
that must be exercised by the legislator,
or may be waived by him. The court
say: IF the trainers of our constitu-
ton had desired 10 extend a personal
privilege to the legislator they might
have done so, but by this section they
were evidently guarding the interests
of the public and they have said that a
member of the legislature is not subject
to the service of civil process during the
session. The fact that the usual words
privileged from were not used, and
the words 'sugject to- were used, would
indicate that ii was not the intention 10
grant personal privilege tothe member
or that the usual interpre tration of the
words privileged from should be ap-
piled. The use of the words subject to
means that the member is not liable to
the service of civil process. To con-
strue our constitution differently would
be TO defeat its apparent object. The
state is clearly entitled to the services
Of its members of the legislature during
the time sessions of either branch
thereof are being held. Our constitu-
ton has wisely provided that the mem
bers shall not be annoyed with arrests
or suits or be obliged to be absent from
their duties"
The following proceedings were had
in the court of appeals sitting in this
city yesterday:
No. 135. Wichita and Western Rail-
road company VS.. Mckee; dismissed.
No. 1885, B. c. Dent, adm, VS.. ].
MackLove; submitted for decision.
No. 173. Henry Stunkle VS.. ]. II. Hol-
land; submitted for decision.
No. 139. William Hardwick VS.. H.
Rutter, continued.
No. 140. George R. F'ultz VS.. T. p
Neal; submitted for decision.
No. 535. State VS.. w. r. Bennett; con-
tinued.
No. 562 State VS.. W. E. Hook; sub
mitted for decision.
No. 500. State VS.. w. r. Bennett; con-
tinued.
NO. AIS. s. z. Myers VS.. George Knobe
ct al; submitted for decision.
No. $50. T. L. Ried vs. w. W. Powell
ct al; dismissed.
No. 544 S. W. Shattuck vs.. Charles
A. Ellar ct al; dimissed.
The court finished up the docket in
the afternoon and adjourned.