The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1905-09-12


cceiinas 10 coudeain such hul FOR 2
school house site. such oreer appeaflpg /
TO be- necessary ior the protcctiysi of
the building and n fartherancc of ius- I
uce
II is The duty of an anpciice. 1s wen
rs the duy Of an appellant. to brief his
case when brought here on nppenl. and
whore he fails TO DO 50 and no reason-
able excuse for such failure. this court.
IN ns discretion. has The rieht to either
consider the case on IT'S merits on TO
deem error as being confessed. and re-
verse the case or dismiss the cause which
he represents. without examining the
case- made on transcript
Rock Island Damage Case.
Ia the case Of John C. Long vs. The
Rock Island Railroad. for sij0o damaees'
appealed from Grant county Justice Bur-
wei. in his opinion IN supreme court, af.
firms the action Of the lower court
against Ions. Thc claim IS that as the
railroad company. In mov NIX the body Of
a dead son Of the piaintin allowed It to
fan. breaking the caskot and inluring the
body The action esmnges amounted
TO se5. and the remainder Of the 1.50o
sued for was for mental suffering oc-
casioned bv the accident. The lower
court would allow nothing for the mental
suffering. but granted the s65 damage
rhe supreme court decidea 20 taqe the
same stand Justice Burwells syllabus
/ Of the case Is rs follows:
l. The parents Of an infant child arc
not entitled under the law. TO recover
damages for mental pain and anguish
occasioned by the mudation Of the dead
/ body Of such infant
Interesting Cattle Case.
In the case of Grant Miller VS.. The
Territory OF Oklahoma. appealed from
{ Woods county, Justice Burwel. IN his
opinion IN the supgeme court, anirms
IN lower courts decision convicting Mil
Der Of stealing thirteen cows. and sen-
fencing MIN to seven years in the peni-
tentinrv. Justice Burwelrs syllabus Of
the case is as follows.
When the evidence reasonably supports
a verdict. the judgment rendered there
on win be sustained even though the
creates number Of Witnesses may have
testified favorably TO the other side.
II is not error to ask witness FOR the
defendant any question which IS reason
ably calculated to disclose his interest IN
The result Of the trial; and where a wit
ness has signed an affidavit for q change
OF venue the prosecution may ask him in
relation thereto. 1t Is then the province
OF the jury to say as TO whether he has
an interest IN the outcome of the case.
and as to whether such interest IN any
degree Influenced his testimony.
one George Hedges was indicted with
the defendant on the trial the defendant
asked that the witness be excluded
J from the court room, and the court made
! the desired order and also stated to the
defendant and his counsel that il they
I expected 10 use Hodges as witness Ire
should be excluded from the court room
also. Hodges remained outside for a
] short time and then, with the consent OF
\ the defendant and his attorneys, return
I ed to the court room and listened To the
trial. He. was, by the defendant, offered
as witness. When his testimony was
corcluded ;he court In the presence OF
the Jury. ordered him taken into Gus
! tody to answer for contempt IN violating
the order OF the court IN returning 10
! the court room when the witnesses had
been excluded: the ccur, stating az the
! time that he would dispose Of the matter
after the trial WAS over. Held: That
as The witnesses We're excluded nj the
Z request of the defendant and the courts
order was violated with his knovledga and
consent. all OF which was known to the
Z Jury he cannot complain OF the action OF
the court looking toward the punishment
Z Of witness for violating such order
trial court may. in it's discreet tion, ash
Z proper questions OF Witnesses IN Grim
= Ia .f..fF n mo rfff4
I pose OF enciting the real facts. Courts
4 are organized :or the administration OF
! justice. and so long as the court does
: not. by its questions or conduct mdi-
cate It's views MS 10 the matters in issu'
I a defendant VIII not be heard to COM
plain of ana question asked by it whicf
Is reasonably calculated to elicit The
truth. De Ford VS.. Painter, 80 Okla, 81
Al Pac, 90.
I n IS NOT every improper remark of q
TRIAL court that Will justify a reversal Of
] 4 criminal case. II the remarks are such
as might reasonably influence the iur3
( agamst defendant. "a new trial should
be granted; but II, after "a fun con
! sideration OF the entire record. it IS clear
that the verdict is right. and that. ever
n the remarks had not been made the
jury coulc not reasonably have returned
Z a different verdict the judgment viii be
I anirmod.
Victory for Thaeker.
In the case Of the Territory Of okla
/ homa by county Attorney Chas. rhackei
vs. John Allen, w b. Price and b Bran
3 ham, Justice Hainer in his opinion IL
supreme court aifirms the probate cour
Or Greer county. in their decision ii
favor OF the defendants His syllabus 1
4 as follows:
1. Under the provisions of sec. 6i3
Z our code of criminal procedure Wilson
: Annotated statutes, 1905, bail is pre-
Z dltted TO be taken only by the person
( or courts authorized by law to arres
4 and imprison offenders Hence the judg
4 OF the district court is authorized to TAX
= bali in "A criminal case,
y Greer County Bonds.
4 In The ease OF the Territory OF Okla
homa by County Attorney Chas. rhaeker
y vs. James p. Sellers W. p. Henry, ant
= lG + Border, Justice Hainer IN mis- opin
a 80