The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1901-03-22
THE WEEK In COURT
MONDAYS PROCEEDINGS


As usual on the first daylfew cases
came up, the morning being devoted
to running over the docket and setting
the time for trial of the various cases.
Some twenty lawyers were preset and
the session started off with a buzz.
The court requested that as many
divorce cases as possible be brought
up during the day so as TO prevent
their coming in at odd moments later
and interfering with the other work.
The following cases were disposed
of;
State VS.. Alvin Alyea, continued
and bond fixed at 5000
State VS.. r.. b. McClelland, who
skipped from Jail and was never
found, stricken off the docket
State VS.. Augustus Caesar Baker
dismissed.
Divorce case of Sarah Smith VS..
Joseph Smith dismissed on motion of
plaintiff.
Dustin Adams VS.. T, NJ. Anderson,
ir., stricken off,
Ida Clark VS.. Santa Fe continued
byconsent.
VIM. Davis VS.. lola Mfg. Co., II.
H. Bennett given leave to file inter-
pleader instanter.
LaHarpe Lumber Co. VS.. Ed Teve-
baugh dismissed without prejudice at
plaintiffs costs.
James Wallace VS.. Sarah Axley.
continued.
Humboldt State Bank VS.. Hiram
Armstrong, service by publication
confirmed and judgment for S75,37
rendered.
Divorce of Ollie Hecox VS. Frank
Hecox continued.
NJ. A. Bush VS. Lanyon Zinc Co., on
application of defendant it was al
lowed to withdraw application for
change to U. S. CIRCUIT Court.
VIM II. Smith was granted a di-
vorce from Pearl Smith.
Jonas Carter VS. Ollie Carter, de-
PENDANT given leave to answer in
stanter.
T. b. Shannon VS. w. f. Thompson,
settled and costs paid.
Lanyon Zinc Company VS. II, A.
Ewing, case tried at last term and
taken under advisement. Court finds
for defendant to which plaintiff ex-
cepts. Judgment rendered that gas
lease be forfeited.
After dinner the habeas corpus pro-
ceedings in the liquor cases came up
and was argued by S. A. Gard for the
defendants and by r. H. Bennett for
the prosecution. The defense set up
that the state was not party to the
prosecution, that the county ator-
ney's name did not appear on the
papers, that a private citizens affi-
davit is no good in criminal action,
that the county attorney must prose-
cute in all state actions, and that
therefore there was no case in court
against the defendants.
TUESDAYS PROCEEDINGS
The hearing in the matter of the
habeas corpus proceedings TO get two
of the joint keepers, arrested some
days ago on an affidavit sworn out by
one George Claypool before notary
public, out lof Jail was granted by
Judge Stilwell Monday afternoon
and his decision deferred until next
morning. He cited rulings and au-
thority for the position that in Kansas
the county attorney must be the pro-
secuting:S attorney in all criminal
actions brought by the State, and that
private parties, not even the sheriff
could make arrests or start actions,
without consulting the county attor-
ney and getting his signature to the
papers. a Moreover the new law allow
ing other attorneys to be assistants to
the the county attorney, does not mean
in the courts opinion, that these as
sistant lawyers can go ahead and
prosecute whomever they see fit, but
can only:help prosecute such parties
as are being prosecuted by the county
attorney. Otherwise malice and hatred
would lead men to bring actions
against innocent parties and have
them arrested and their names paraded
in justice court, the prosecuting in
dividual could skip out and the State
would be bankrupted by the expense
The court room was crowded with
people who were interested in the
decision which the court delivered at
some length. 1t is understood that
the guilt of the men arrested did not
enter as a question into the proceed
ings, it was simply . proceeding to
get the men out of Jail who could not
give bond, on the plea that the action
brought against them was not accord
ing to law. OF course the granting OF
the habeas corpus action in favor of
the two men in Jail, likewise wipes out