The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-11-12
GETS new TRIAL.
Supreme Court Decides in Favor
of Charles Keleher.
Holds Lower Court Should Have
Given New Trial.
CONVICTED FIRST TIME
Man Who Committed Murder
Made Two Confessions.
One Implicated Keleher, Other
Exonerated Him.
CONVICTED FIRST TIME

Probably the most important Grim
inaI case decided by the supreme court
for some time is that of Charles Kele-
her. the Graham county man who was
convicted as accessory in the murder
OF Chas. Wetzel. The supreme court
reversed the lower court. and Keleher
will get new trial This case has at
tracted much attention because Kele-
her is a relative of Lieutenant Cover
nor D. A. Hanna. 1t was charged that
he had entered into a conspiracy with
one Leland Roberts to rob a man nam
ed Wetzel. The original plan for the
robbery fell through, and Roberts,
keleher and Wetzel started out on
foot to go to Kansas City. They had
gone only a short distance from Hill
City, it was claimed, when Roberts hit
Wetzel over the head and killed him.
Wetzel was dragged into a ravine and
buried, after his. money had been TAX
en- from him. Section men found the
body soon after, and Roberts and KEEL
cher were arrested. Roberts confess
ed and claimed that Keleher was his
accomplish. After Roberts had been
sentenced to the penitentiary for life,
and after Keleher had been tried and
convicted, Roberts made another con-
fession in which he exonerated Kele-
her entirely from the murder. This
second confession was never brought
to the jury which convicted Keleher,
but it was urged upon the court as a
ground for new trial. The lower
court says this was a mistake. The
following is the syllabus of the su-
preme court: .-4-
Il. To render one who is not pres
ent and does not aid or assist in a
murder guilty thereof by reason of a
low ,, Gle =
must appear that the murder was
within the contemplation Of the con-
spiracy or was the natural or probable
outcome thereof.
p A conspiracy to steal money
from a barn, where it was supposed to
be hidden is not such conspiracy as
would naturally and probably. result
IN the murder of the owner of the
money at a place entirely remote from
the barn, and under circumstances in.
no way connected with obtaining mon
ey from the barn.
80 In such case, and in the alb
senee- Of evidence showing any. connec-
ton between the conspiracy the
murder except that the murder was
for the purpose, on the part of the
slayer to obtain the money, 1t is error
to instruct the jury that they may find
the absent conspiratqf guilty of muir
der II they find theN Hdirder was the
natural and proba4 leaoutcome Of the
conspiracy
The appeal. of thu state against Bob
Fletcher from. <AlIeh- county for selling
liquor to minors was reversed on the
ground that. IN view of the other pro
visions OF the .prohibitory law the sec
ton thereof which forbids the giving
of intoxicating liquor to minors must
be construed to have reference only to
gifts properly so-called and not to sales
and therefore a conviction upon an in
formation drawn under that section
ho al r1ad 45,,& ~,
defendant sold intoxicating liquor to a
minor"
Bob Fletcher sold liquor to a small
boy and was convicted under the pro-
visions of the prohibitory law declaring
the liquor should not be given to minors
The supreme court decided that gift
and sale Of liquor are entirely differ
ent matters and that Fletcher should
In its long list of opinions handed
down Saturday, the Kansas supreme
court decided number of important
cases appealed from the courts of north
western Kansas.
One of the important cases which the
supreme court reversed and ordered
judgment entered for the defendant,
was that of Ralph Laughlin, a 13-year-
old ConcOrdia boy, who was run over by
a c. B. & Q. train on December s, 1902,
and whose leg was cut off. Suit was
brought In. the Cloud county district
court, and a judgment of 1899 given
against the IallIOaQ company. inc Su-
preme court holds that the special find
ings Of the jury showed that the boy
tried to run across the railroad track in
front of a moving freight train; that he
was familiar with the place where he
tempted to crGSS, and his reason for try
ing to cross wits because he thought the
train was going to stop. The supreme
court holds that these special findings
do not warrant the general verdict
against the railway company. and that
the boy was guilty Of contributory negii-
gence.
The case of the state vs.. Guy Conner
from Rush county was affirmed. Con-
nor is young farmer who was caught
in the act of stealing a wagonload of
wheat from one of the neighboring
farmers. He was watched and follow
ed by a number of farmer boys who
had organized themselves into a sort of
catching the person who had been steal
ing wheat. Conner appealed from the
verdict AGAINST him in the lower court,
but the supreme court holds that the
alleged errors were of too technical a
nature to warrant a reversal Of the case.
A similar case was that Of the State
vs.. Chas- Glass from Stafford county.
Glass was tried and convicted of steal
ing wagon load Of coal from the coal
house Of district "a school. He was
traced. by a peculiar track left by his
wagon, and the coal was found in his
yard. Glass will have to serve a term
Tor DlIBlAFy, as the SUPP eine court re-
fused to reverse the decision Of the low
er court.
John /. Miller of Graham county
will get rehearing in the lower court
of the criminal charge against him
He was accused Of two offenses: first.
of fraud IN concealing mortgaged
property, and second, of selling with
out the consentfof the mortgage. Both
of these counts were sustained in the
lower court. Inc supreme court az
firms the verdict of the lower court on
the first count, and reverses it as
TO the second.
c. G. Parkhurst OF Riley. county was
convicted in tho lower court of rob
berry IN the first degree In describing
the assault which ACCOMPANIED the
robbery. the informa ton charges facts
which constituted the crime of assault