Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1899-05-10
DISTRICT COURT.

ClOn or county attorney.
City of Kiowa Us. Gailbraith: contin
ed for term.
Inv. Guarantee Co. VS.. Wisner; dis
missed at cost of plaintiff.
The Garten rape case was continued
until the October term. by mutual con
| sent.
Cline VS.. Cline; Divorce granted plain
tiff and defendant given custody O
minor child.
| j. n. Tincher and r. S. Field wer,
admitted to the bar by Judge Glllett OF
Wednesday. Mr.. Tinche. has beer
reading law in A. l.. Mobiles Office ane
MIR. Field has been under the tutorshit
OF E. Sample. We congratulate both
Of them.
The first jury trial was called Oh Wed
nesday. 1t was State vs.. Thomas Cot
trell. charged with abducting for the
purpose Of prostitution. one Della Kim
| ball. The case was tried by the follow
ing jury:
Dallas Morris Lester Heckard
J W Crawford B E Wadsworth
Jas Taliaferro CD Newkirk
L Clawson VIM Kinney
G W Lott Wright
CIR McAllisrer I'D German
The jury was out only a short time
when it returned verdict of not gull.
ty. The result was all due to an awk-
| ward blunder of the county attorney
The prisoner should have been tried on
a charge of abduction for the purpose
Of concubinage instead of abduction
for the purpose of prostitution, but Mr..
Griffin did not know that the law made
distinction. Immediately upon Cot
trell's acquittal he was re-arrested on
the cOncubinage charge and was again
committed to Jail. 1t is claimed that
he waived preliminary trial, and if
such is the case, he will probably be
tried during the present term. If he
had not waived, he would have been en-
titled to time to return to Missouri
from whence he was extradited. Still
there is chance for contention, and
some of the attorneys claim that if the
m after were presented to the supreme
court the prisoner could not be held.
This was the first case that Mr.. Griffin
prosecuted and for the sake of the tax
payers, it ought to be the last. But
Sam will continue to draw $4,000 per
annum while the county and the prose-
cutting witnesses will be compelled to
employ special attorneys If they desire
able prosecutions. Fred r. Ellis rep
resented the defendant, and naturally
feels elated over his victory IN SEEM
ingly hopeless undertaking.
The case of the State VS.. Harry Le-
brecht and John Howard was tried on
Thursday. This Is the horse trading
case in which Grant Rogers was the
prosecuting witness, with which all are
familiar. 1t was tried by the following
jury:
E H Smith Lester Heckard
wv Crawford CD Newkirk
Jas Taliaferro VIM Kinney
T CIawson B Wright
G w Lott DID German
RMcAllister o Briggs
The case went to the jury at 8 O'Clock
p. M. and at 2:9O Friday a. M, return
ed verdict of not guilty. The county
attorney caused the arrest of the de-
PENDANTS on charge of robbery in the
first degree but there was no evidence
to sustain such serious charge. Sey-
eral Of the jurymsn told US that if the
charge had been reduced to a lesser
offence there would have been no trou-
BILE in securing a conviction. In this
case there was defect In the informa-
ton but G.. M. Martin was employed at
the last moment and the error was rec
titled. Ellis & Ellis represented the
defendants.
The case Of state vs.. Dunbar was
called on Friday. This case has been
tried several times. The defendant was
charged with committing an assault on
the person of w. c. Afford while the
latter was engaged in discharging his
duties as peace officer in the city of
Hazelton. The state was represented
by County Attorney Griffin and G. w.
Ellis. G. M. Martin was the defend
ants attorney. The following jury
sat IN the case.
] e Carter Dallas Morris
b owen j S Anderson
A L Duncan 10 Ward
Douglas Pyatt G X Taylor
Jas Taliaferro IT Clawson
G " Lott VIM Kinney
The case went to the jury shortly af-
ter dinner and on Saturday they were
discharged without rendering a verdict.
The jury stood ii to for acquittal, and
the old saying of "elevsn stubborn Jur-
Ors' was again exemplified. This is
one of those small petty quarrels which
ought not to be in court, and if the
county attorney has any respect for
public sentiment he should dismiss it..
The costs are already above $500 and
another trial will make them much
greater. The case has already been
tried four times and the people are dis
gusted with it. The charge IN the first
place was only a small misdemeanor
and much of the evidence introduced
by the state shows that honors were
even during the quarrel. The county
ought not to be asked to settle a trivial