The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1899-05-16

Eddy went to arrest him, ii is stated,
without a warrant and was resisted by
Heth, who took the officers guns away
from him and shot at him. Heth was
tried and sentenced to ten years in the
penitentiary. The opinion of the supreme
court reads:
The first contention on the merits is
that the verdict is insufficient to sustain
the judgment. There are several degrees
of the offense charged against the ap-
pellant and the verdict fails to show
the degree of which ne is convicted. IN
der the ruling in state VS.. O'Shea, SO Kan
sas, 593, and the cases cited, this is a
fatal error which compels a reversal OF
the judgment.
.,On behalf OF the appellant it is sug-
gested that the case should be sent back
for correction of the sentence and not
for a new trial. He claims that the YER
dict is sufficiently specific to warrant a
sentence for misdemeanor under section 43
Of the crimes act. and asks that the case
be remanded for that purpose. The fault
OF the verdict is that it does not specify
the degree of the offense of which they
found the appellant guilty. The charge,
as we have seen, embraced several de-
greeS OF offenses, and the verdict merely
found him guilty as charged. Under sec
ton 239 OF the criminal code, the jury are
expressly charged in such cases to specify
in their verdict Of what degree of the Of
Tense they find the defendant guilty. From
the terms Of the verdict in the present
case we cannot say that the jury intended
to specify any particular degree or TO find
the defendant guilty OF a misdemeanor
Failing in this respect. the verdict is
fatally defective and the court should
have declined to receive it.
I'VE are asked TO consider the rulings
Of the court in giving and refusing in
structions. The record includes the charge
Of the court, as well as the instructions
which were asked by the defendant and
refused by the court; but as the record
contains none Of the evidence or any state
ment Of what the testimony tended 10
prove, the errors gned are not avail
able.
These rulings might have been received
If the testimony or portions Of Il. or q
statement Of what the testimony tended
20 prove had been saved in the bill of
exceptions. Three futile attempts were
made by the appellant to have the bill
or exceptions, containing more or less OF
the testimony, allowed and signed BY the
trial Judge. The judge refused to allow
and sign them because they did not con-
tain all the evidence given al the trial /
nor al Of the evidence upon the material |
issues iH the case. and further. that they
did contain the statement OF defendants
a. = T.
The judge insisted mat a full transcrfrr
OF the stsnograp piers notes should he .
prepared and presented 10 him. and thar
the stenographer vas ready TO furnish a i
transcript upon the payment Of the legal
ices q the stenographer. The appellant.
unable 70 pay the ices OF complete tran
script, prepared a summary ot the test
mony in one b!H with vie3 o. rass.nz
a question upon the Instructions Another
bill contained a fuIled rec tai % the -es
iimony and another appears 70 be eu.se
a full report % the testi n1oay or al he
witnesses The court. however. declined
70 sls1 any - them. stating that TIE press
OF official business made Il impossible .or
him 10 compare me statements az evidence
n the bills % exceptions T.t5 The s.e7-
osraphic notes None % the reasons given
appear % Is . be sufficient grounds fo-
the refusal ot the 5adge &c alex ard sgn
the exceptions No duty e more Eu2e-a-
i've and important than TIE coasTse-a-
sion s1d allowance - exceptions prepared
and presented by s Etigsni- ard 20 god
reason r seen why other oficlsl business
should have precedence over the duty
mentioned. TIE other duties. however
pressing. should not be sil0Eet 70 pre-
vent tae consideration OF sxrsptienz pre-
parea and presented II behs.. q ore whs
has been convicted o 3 Eeiony ard OK