The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-09-29
The JOINT CASES.
City Attorney Prepares State
ment to City Council.
Says Results Have Not Been
Due to BIunders.
HE ISN'T TO BLAME.
Lack Of Evidence the Cause of
Acquittal.
Will Follow Course Prescribed
by Council.
HE ISN'T TO BLAME.

City Attorney Spencer today compile
ted his statement to the city council
concerning the joint cases in the district
court. 1t is as follows:
Topeka, Kan. Sept. q, 1903.
To the Mayor and Council.
present herewith a statement in re-
gard to liquor cases in the district court
in order that you may take any action
you may deem fit and proper. and 1 also
take this occasion to make some general
observations in regard to the prosecu-
tion of liquor cases by the city.
There were 46 appealed liquor cases
for trial at this term of the district
court. Before any of these cases were
set for trial. 1 prepared a full and com
plete record of all of them and furnish
ed copy to the chief of police.
Fifteen of these cases were assigned
Ter trial. and l at once subpoenaed all
parties who were shown by the record
to be witnesses. and notified the chief
OF police to furnish me with the names
of any additional witnesses not shown
by the record.
In all the cases tried. all the witnesses
subpoenaed were present and testified.
and 1 introduced all the evidence fur
nished me. OF the Is cases assigned for
trial tried nine. Six were dismissed to
save expense where there could be but
the one result of acquittal. All the cases
tried were tried on their merits on the evil
dence. None of them were disposed of
on defects in the complaint or other rec
Ords. In eight cases there was a YER
dict of acduittal and in one verdict of
conviction.
In only four of the cases tried, was
the instruction given by Judge Hazen
following his construction of the de-
cision of the supreme court in the Ches-
ney case, applied. In three of these four
cases where this instruction was ap-
piled. there was not sufficient evidence
20 convict even though the instruction
had not been given. In one case only
where this instruction was given was
there a chance for conviction. In two
0f the cases tried there was an arrest
on view without written complaint. The
conviction obtained was in one of these
cases.
There are two erroneous impressions
to some extent prevailing in regard to
these LIQUOR cases and the decision or
the supreme court in the Chesney case.
The first is that the city attorney die
not recognize and act in harmony with
this decision: and the second is that this
decision in some way affected the COM
plants and the issuing and serving of
the warrants. The city attorney acted
and advised in harmony with this de-
cision. In the Chesney case there was
a period of five days between the offense
charged and the service of the warrant,
and a period of two days between the
filing of the complaint and the service
of the warrant
on account or TINS decision, directed
Chief of Police Goff to have the CON-
plant made and the warrant issued and
served on the same day. and to have
the warrant served as soon as possible
after the complaint was made. This
instruction was carried out. and in the
thirty-seven liquor cases on the district
court docket this term. where there was
a written complaint. the complaint was
made and the warrant issued and served
on the same day.
l,a fharaforo N
the decision of the supreme court in the
Chesney case. has no bearing whatever
on the making of the complaint and the
issuance and service of the warrant iii
any of these liquor cases.
II a prosecution were begun this day