The Advocate and news., 1897-11-24

fSealI Clerk.
Kansas Court OF Appeals, Northern De-
partment, Eastern Division,
No. 500.
Filed November 3, 1887,
The State Of Kansas, appellee,
Martin h. Lowe, appellant
Appeal from Wabaunsee County
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. by the Court. McElroy, j.
/. It Is not error for the trial court TO
oVerrule motion to quash an indictment
for irregularity In selecting the grand
jury where such lrregularity, In the opin-
Ion Of the court, does not amount to cor
ruption.
2. 1t is within the discretion Of the trial
court to permit the names Of additional
witnesses to be indOrSed on an indictment
at the commencement OF the lrial, ana
Judgment should NOT be r9voIHGl on ac-
count Of such permission, unless II appears
that such Endorsement was in abuse Of
such discretion.
g. Evidence tending 10 prove the accused
indictment, Is not, on that account, ilcom-
petent, II 1t tends TO prove any tact con-
stituting an element In the offense that
ls charged In the indictment. II Intent Is
material, any fact is incompetent against
the accused which tends to show the mo-
tive OF the criminal act charged. In such
case the evidence Is not incompetent be-
cause 1t may tend to show the accused
guilty Of another Offense thln me one
charged.
A true copy.
Attest; w. II. THOMPSON
[Seal.l Clerk
Kansas Court of Appeals, Northern De-
partment, Eastern Division
No. $50.
Filed November 5, 1897.
The State of Kansas, appellee,
VS..
Samuel A. Johnson, appellant.
Error from Wabaunsee County District
Court.
REVERSED.
Syllabus. BY the Court. Wells, j.
/. A motion to quash an indictment for
irregularities In the selection and proceed
ings OF the grand jury that returned II,
can only be sustained under Par. 5l44, @. s.
1889, when such Irregularities, In the opinion
OF the court, amounts to corruption, ana
where the evidence upon that question is
conflicting, the Judgment of the court be-
low will not be disturbed.
2. The unexplained possession of the
fruits Of crime, recently after Its COM
mission, is prima facie evidence OF guilty
possession, and applies equally to person
charged with receiving and to one charged
with taking 1t, and such possession need
may, In connection with other circum-
stances, justify conviction.
3. Besides the formal matter Of venue,
etc, to lawfully convict the defendant in
this case, It was necessary for the jury to
have found from the evidence, beyond
reasonable doubt, the following facts, only:
First, that the body OF Amelia Van Fleet
was unlawfully removed from its grave
for the purpose Of dissection, and
Second, that the defendant received said
body, knowing that 1t had been so unlaw
fully removed for such purpose, or know
ingly aided, COunseled, abetted, or assisted
some other person or persons in so doing.
4. 1t was not error for the court to re-
fuse to give the jury an instruction, in sub
stance, that the proof of the good char
acter of the defendant completely removed
the presumption of guilt arising from the
possession Of the stolen body, but 1t was
the duty of the jury to consider the evil
dence upon each of these subjects and give
II such weight as they thought 1t entitled
to under all the circumstances of the case
5. 1t is reversible error for a court to
assume material controverted question,
az a fact proven and instruct the jury as
to their duty under such assumption.
A true copy.
Attest: W. III. THOMPSON,
ISeall Clerk
Kansas Court of Appeals, Southern De-
partment. Eastern Division
No l59