The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-10-17
TRY A new PLAN.
Old System Of Arrssting joint
lists Is Exploded.
"On View" Evidence Is No
Longer Good.
WEBB GETS NEW TRIAL
Decision In Fritz Durein Case
the Basis.
Justice Burch's Decision Model
of Fine Writing.
WEBB GETS NEW TRIAL

The officers of Topeka will no longer
be able to use the on view system OF ar
resting jointists with any degree OF
success, as the supreme court has de-
cided that what the officers see when
making arrests on view cannot be used
to prove the maintaining of nui-
sance. The decision has also been
made by Judge Hazen that when Off
GERS make arrests on view that the
only evidence they can use is the tran
sactions they see at the time of the
arrest. The supreme court has also
decided that the evidence. in cases
where warrants are issued, that oc-
ours after the issuance of the warrant
shall be submitted or not in the dis
erection of the court
The decision regarding the evidence
of a nuisance in "a case where the ar
rest is made on view was decided by
the supreme court in the appealed
case of Fritz Durein and is applicable
TO the case of F. Webb, who asked
for a new trial in the district court
and which was granted this morning
by Judge Hazen on the strength of the
decision of the supreme court.
Webb, who was convicted in the dis
trict court in September, 1903, on the
charge of maintaining a common null
sance where liquor was sold, will have
a new trial, which means he will not
be convicted on the charge
In OEQer 10 ascertain the rights OF
Webb in the case the district court
has waited on decision from the SUI
preme court and in handing down the
opinion of such Importance to Webb
Justice Burch has started in compe-
IltlOn with eX-L1eutenant Governor Ed
Little in his rights and title to refer
TO the pyramids of Egypt and their
long standing.
The district court has had also to
untangle the words of the supreme
justice and to modify them into the
one syllable variety so that the mean
ing may be plain and be understood
by Webb and others.
Webb was arrested by the police |
Tor maintaining a nuisance. He was |
convicted in police court and he ap-
pealed to the district court and was
convicted. Then he asked for a new
trial and he will get it. When Judge
Hazen made that announcement City |
Attorney Spencer remarked that there
was no need of trying Webb again as |
the supreme court, the pyramids and
the Interpretation of the supreme
court decision left nothing for trial
Webb was arrested by the officers |
OH view. They viewed the establish
ment for a period of a few moments
and then decided that they had seen
enough to know that he maintained a |
nuisance Justice Burch, of the su- |
preme court, announced in his decis- |
ion of the Fritz Durein case when de-
cided by the higher court that the |
view of the officers is not RETROSPECT |
i've anu lnaI the view OF the officers I
can not be sent back along the trail.
In deciding what a nuisance is in |
his opinion Justice Burch says: 'In |
order to be such, a nuisance must ex- |
asst for some length of time The CO. |
ordination of its elements must have
an appreciable duration and in ordi-
nary cases continuity for a period con-
siderably beyond the limits of the de !
minibuS rule may be safely asserted" |
To explain that the officers can not
look backward to prove what they
think, Justice Burch says in the opin-
ion: From their present condition |
and appearance it might be reasona-
bly, inferred that the pyramids of |
Egypt have endured without essential |
modification for long period of time. |
No such inference is possible concern
ing frost films on the window pane. |
The quality of substantially change |
less continuity inheres in the one and |
not in the other. Between such classes |
Or OBJECTS and separated from one an |
other by inflnitesimally slight signs of |
difference lies an infinity of states, con- |
ditions and relations, complicated by /
the interpos1tion of human activities.
In the case now under consideration |
appellant might have been convicted |
of maintaining a nuisance on the day |
the information was filed Within |
few minutes after the action was COM |
menced he was found apparently in !
charge of a well appointed saloon per- |
@onally dispensing beer. The evidence |
disclosing this fact should have gone
ever. the fact that the court attempt /
ed to impose restrictions upon is pro |
batory force was to the advantage of |
the appellant and he cannot complain. |
The simple fact of the existence of |
a nuisance at the place in question up
on January 10, 1908, after the informa- |
ton had been filed, or that fact COM !
bined with the fact that the appellant |
was its keeper at that time, could not |
be related to the existence of keeping |
of nuisance at that same place in
June of the preceding year or by mere |
force of retrospective Inference