The Topeka state journal., 1901-08-27
BRENARD is FREE.
The City Detective Not Held
For Perjury.
Judge McCabe Decides Evidence
Is insufficient.
WAS NOT MATERIAL.
Exact Date of Violations of Law
Unnecessary.
Defendant Was Not Positive in
His Statements.

Judge AIcCabe IN the city court this
morning announced his decision in the
John Brenard perjury case finding Bren-
ard not guilty.
Brenard is one of Chief Stahls detec-
tives. He testified in case in the po-
lice court against George Klauer charg-
ed with selling liquor. He testified to
seeing liquor delivered at Klauer's
place and Klauer claimed that at the
time he was not in Topeka The fol-
lowing is Judge NIcCabe's decision:
1.-The complaint herein charges the
defendant. John Brenard. with perjury
and the three assignments of false
swearing are that at trial of one Geo.
Klauer in the police court on August s,
Brenard testified that on July n, he
saw Klauer order beer; that on said
day KIauer talked with q certain ex
pressman, and that also on said day
beer was delivered at the place kept by
klauer. 1t was admitted by counsel
for the state that klauer had time and
again been convicted of the same Of
tense for which he was on trial at the
time the alleged perjury was commit
ted, that is, Of maintaining nuisance
at the same place. and it was further
admitted for the purposes of the case
that beer was delivered at said place
during the months of June, July and
August. and that the same was a place
where Intoxicating liquors We're being
sold habitUally.
1.-THE complaint upon which Klauer
was tried in police court charged vio-
lations of the prohibitOry law commit
ted on August ., and inasmuch as
KIauer had been acquitted of offenses
alleged to have been committed down
to June IA, obviously the issue at that
trial was whether or not the defendant
was guilty of violations Of law between
June IA, and August 2. If the evidence
warranted it he could have been con-
victed on any illegal transaction occur
ring between those dates. 1t is claimed
by the state that Klauer was absent
from the city between the 18th and 30th
days of July, and that therefore Bren-
ard committed perjury when he testl-
fed that Klauer ordered beer on July
27. 1t is claimed by the defense that
inasmuch as perjury can only be as
signed of material matters. the defend
ant should be discharged, for the rea-
son that it was immaterial what date
the violations of law occurred on, pro-
vided violations did in fact occur be-
tween June IA, and August 2.
THE issue at the police court trial
was not whether Klauer violated the
law on July o. but whether he was
guilty of violations occurring on any
day between June IA. and August ?. The
date in that case was not material II
Klauer had been absent from the city
during all Of the time between June IA
and August 2, undoubtedly Brenard
would have been guilty OF perjury. IT,
however, Klauer violated the law at
any time between June IA, and the day
he felt town, which according to his
own testimony at this preliminary ex-
animation was July y, he would have
been guilty irrespective of his where
abouts on July 27. The material point
at that trial was, We're deliveries Of
beer made,-the question was not the
date of the delivery 1t was immater-
iaI when deliveries We're made, provid-
ed they were made between June Il and
August 2
1T was argued at the hearing of this
case that the date was material be-
cause Klauer might have proven an
alibi. But let us examine this sugges-
ton a moment. Suppose Klauer had
gone upon the witness stand in that
case and testified that he was not in
the city on July q, and that no beer
was delivered at this place on that day.
The city attorney would have asked on
or ross-examination: Were you in the
city between June Il and July 122' he
would have answered: Yes Was beer
delivered as testified to by Brenard be-