The Topeka state journal., 1902-01-09
Attorneys Appeal TO District
Court For New Trial.
Arguments by II. b. WeIch and
Charles Hayden.
NO TIME FOR APPEAL.
Attorneys Argue That Collins
Was Deprived of Rights.
County Attorney Nichols Claims
That Action Was Proper.

The arguments were commenced this
morning before Judge Hazen on the
writ of coram nobis in the John H. Col
Inns murder case. The attorneys for
Collins hope by means of the writ to
gain a new trial in the district court
for Collins.
Collins was convicted December "a,
1898, by jury in the district court OH
the charge of numbering his father, J.
S. Collins. The verdict was given 13
days before the close of the term of
court. The law at that time required
that the bill of exceptions be completed
before the end of the term. The stenog-
raphic notes covered $500 pages and it
would have taken the court stenograph-
er a month to transcribe the notes. Col
Inns attorneys, Welch & Welch and
Charles Hayden, claim that because of
the reason that the stenographer could
not prepare the transcript in time that
they were deprived of the right of ap-
peal.
r. B. Welch claims to have some new
evidence which would be sufficiently
clear to free John Collins if he were to
have another trial The statutory time
for securing a new trial on the showing
of new evidence is past. Mr.. Welch
claims that the new evidence was not
secured in time to secure a new trial.
The writ of coram nobiS is reSorted to
in hopes of securing a new trial and If
a new trial is secured Mr.. Welch says
that some sensations evidence will be
introduced which will prove the innO-
cence of Collins.
Collins was sentenced on March 27,
1899, to be hanged but as the death
sentence is never executed in Kansas
he is still in prison. A new trial would
mean that another jury would have to
be secured and the entire case repeated.
Many of the states witnesses could
probably not be secured again. The
arguments made this morning We're on
technical points as to whether the writ
of coram nobis was proper and wheth-
er it should be allowed
County Attorney Galen Nichols ap-
peared for the state. In his argument
he said: "A writ of coram nobiS is on
an error of fact not known at the time
of trial which if known would have pre-
vented the rendition of the verdict, for
instance, insanity. In the John Collins
case a motion for new trial was filed
and was held under advisement by the
court for several months TIE court
should have been convinced of the error
of fact at the time Under the consti-
tuition all the right man has is a trial
by jury and no new trial and no ap-
peal unless he complies with all the
statutory requirem entS. John Collins
had his fair trial No matter how un-
just the law he has had his trial Col
Inns had a fair trial. He met his ac-
cusers face to face and was tried by II
of his peers. He has no right to de-
mand anything more"
In his argument for Collins, r. b.
Welch referred to several authorities to
show that the writ of coram nobis was
the proper procedure in the case. 1T
was physical impossibility for the
court reporter to prepare the evidence
to furnish the transcript in the case be-
fore the end of the term or if he had
been given the time of the next term it
would still have been a physical i'm
possibility" said Mr.. Welch. "The
transcript must not only be prepared
by signed and fled during the term"
"Then,' said Judge HaZen, 1.-The stem
ographer would not have been able to
prepare the transcript at any term of
court
Il think that at that time the stem
ographer was unusually busy" replied
Mr. Welch. II understand that this is
the only time that this has happened.
The law has since been changed and the
time for the preparing of transcripts.
The right to have the case reviewed by
the supreme court is guaranteed to ev-
eryone."
Mr. Hayden followed Mr.. we1ch. He
said in part: I'VE are not asking this
new trial upon technical ground The
appeal shall be allowed the defendant
as a matter of right" Mr.. Hayden'S
contention was that the right of appeal
belonged to Collins. He cited authori-
ties in support of his argument.
Mr.. Hayden claimed that all persons
in court should have equal rights. To
bear out his contention he said that if
two persons were tried separately on
the same charge and upon the same teS-
timony and the trial of one was closed
two weeks or such matter before the
end of the term and the second case was
closed at the end of the term the de-
fendant in the first case would be able
to file an appeal and the defendant in
the second case would not have the
same privilege.