Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1898-09-01
WHGPAYS THEfRH|GHT
COSTS OF THE NORRIS CASE
ARE IN DOUBT.
If Dickinson Il to Try the Saline
County Criminal Case. viii the
Taxpayers Here Have to Put Up
for the Expsnsss'- Lesson Of the
Past.

nave UUCu oouSiuOtiuS WIN oo'"" -"
terest the Norris.Gaines libel case
brought by County Attorney Kane in
this county and are wondering who
is to pay the costs. The case is be-
tween residents OF Saline county
where Mr.. Gaines aper is published
and where it has general circulation
and they are at loss to know why
our county attorney should make it
a Dickinson county affair and want
to know who is to pay the freight.
A pretended Republican paper Of
this city which is as usual support
ing only part of the Republican tick
ct and never loses an opportunity
either to apologize for the mistakes
Of Populist officials or to lambast Re.
publicans for doing their duty,quotes
County Attorney Kane as saying:
II do not know how strong case
Norris has, but II Gaines can Justify
his publications and prove their truth
Norris must know it, and should the
Norris prosecution fail because Of the
truth Of Gaines statements Norris
will be held for the costs Of the pros
ecution." ~.
1t is somewhat OF a shock to find
our distinguished Populist county at
torney making such statement as
this. Is it possible that he is un-
familiar with the law which provides
that the only instance in which the
prosecuting witness in state case
must pay the costs in case Of acquit.
tai by the jury is when the court or
jury find that the prosecution was
"malicous or without probable
causePn This is not done once in
five hundred times and certainly is
unlikely in this case.
The finding Of such verdict as
would compel the prosecuting witness
to pay the costs lies either with the
court or jury and in no case has the
county attorney any power or author
ity to make other arrangements.
One such instance only Of this kind
has occurred during Mr.. Kane's ad-
ministration and be will Of course be
willing that his record shall be used
to Judge his probable action in the
coming case.
1t will be remembered that Mr..
Kane brought criminal case against
Chas. Hoffman, embezzlement of
$500 being charged, A. B. Seelye
being prosecuting witness. The jury
in that case brought in verdict Of
acquittal and added that the prosecu.
tion was without probable cause"
thus throwing the costs, e1l5 10, up.
on the prosecuting witness and judg-
ment was So rendered.
What did Mr.. Kane dop He went
into Justice Davidson's court and
filed the following motion;
"Motion to set aside the finding Of
the jury that the action was COM
menced without probable cause" and
signed by R. H. Kane, the county at
torney. The granting Of this motion
would have released Seelye from the
costs but Justice Davidson denied it
and Seelye paid the total expense.
The spectacle Of the county's chosen
attorney, paid by the county to look
after the taxpayers interests, asking
that the costs Of case declared by
jury to be borne by prosecuting
witness be assessed to the county is
not exactly assuring as to what may
happen in the case under discussion.
In the Seelye matter c. E. Rugh
and C. S. Crawford objected to Kane's
motion and when he challenged their
authority they stated that they ap-
peared by authority Of the board Of
county commissioners. Commits.
sioner Baker had been informed that
Mr.. Kane would attempt to have the
county bear the costs OF the action
and authorized them to prevent it il
possible. Just what reason Mr.. Kane
had for wishing the county to bear
these costs no one knows and whether
or not the fact that he was at the
same time the attorney Of Mr.. Seelye,
the prosecuting witness, in q civil
suit pending in the district court, had
anything to do with his attitude is
not ascertained.
No one blsmes Mr.. Seelye for try