The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-02-25
Order for Leland Roberts to Be
Taken From Prison.
Purpose to Have Him Testify
Against Charles Keleher.
AN OLD MURDER CASE.
Conflicting Confessions Regard
ing Killing of Chas. Wetzel.
Trial to Be Held at HOxie In
stead fHill City.

One of the most unique proceedings
I'm the history of the Kansas supreme
court is that commenced Saturday by
HI Harwi. special attorney appoint
ed to prosecute on behalf of the state
IN the murder case against Charles
Keleher. of Hill City, Graham county,
Harwi asked and received from the
s,1preme court a writ of habeas cor
nus. directing Warden Haskell, OF the
state penitentiary, to produce In court
at Hoxie. Sheridan county, on FEB. ~
the person of Leland Roberts, VINO
pleaded guilty at the former trial OF
the same case, and was sentenced TO
prison for life. Roberts IS now IN lne
penitentiary. In spite of the Iact Ina
Roberts is a convict, 1T Is evident lhdt
Harvvi exnects to use him as a witness
against Keleher on the trial OF the
case. The admission of Roberts tesu-
mony under these circumstances' ma
be strenuously contested, unless lne
defense is willing to nave the leS'
mony introduced
Roberts and Keleher were accuseo
of being in a conspiracy to rob Charles
TVetzel The three men started out or
foot from Hill CITY, and after going
some distance down the railroad
track. Roberts hit WetZel over the
head with a club and killed MN. ROD
erts and Keleher, it is charged tnen
and buried it. Later the body was as
covered, and the two men accused
were arrested The murder was COM
mitted on Nov. Is, 1905.
fessions, which did not agree In de-
tail At first he claimed that keleher
was guilty of killing Wetzel, ana later
denied this, and took the full responsl-
biItv Keleher's own story was that
there was a conspiracy to rob Wetzel.
but there was no suspicion on his
part that it involved the killing OF the
victim. He claimed that the killing
was done by Roberts entirely on MS
own responsibility.
The retriaI of Keleher will take
place at Hoxie, having been removed
there from Graham county. Judge h
NJ. Picker of Smith Center Will pre-
side.
The petition for the writ says
"Your petitioner further represents
and says that on the former trial of
said case one Leland Roberts was
material witness for the state, and will
be a material witness on the retrial; /
that since the former trial, of said
case, said Leland Roberts was con-
victed, on his plea of guilty entered In
the district court of Graham county.
on the crime of murder in the second |
degree, and was sentenced to i'm
urisonment in the Kansas state peni- |
Tertiary for life. where he is now con-
fned pursuant to said sentence; that |
said Leland Roberts is not subject to |
the process of said district court of |
Sheridan county. Kansas, and can not |
by such process be produced as wit |
ness on the trial to be had.
your petitioner therefore prays |
that a writ of habeas corpus may be |
issued directed to Hon. w H Haskell, |
warden of the said penitentiary, d. |
recting and commanding him to pro- /
duce the body of said Leland Roberts
in the district court of Sheridan
county. Kansas. at Hoxie, on the 9th
day of February, 1907. to testify as a
witness on behalf of the state on the |
trial of the said case of the state of
Kansas against Charles Keleher."
The application for the writ was
filed on behalf of Mr.. Harwi by T. F.
Carver of Topeka. who is also asso-
ciated in the prosecution of Keleher.
It is said that there may be some
understanding with the attorneys for
allowed to testify, even though he
may be a convict Roberts last con-
fession, which is generally believed to
be the most truthful one, relieved
Keleher of any completely in the de-
sign to murder Wetzef and merely
made him accessory to the crime of
robbery.
Speaker j. S. simmons Files Cases.
J. S. Simmons, speaker of the house
of representatives, is attorney for Geo.
1905 legislature from Seward county
in a case filed today in the Kansas
supreme court on appeal from Lane
county.
The suit was brought by Charles E
Gibson against John w. Shoe and 9TH
ers. to foreclose mortgage which he
held against tract of farm land. The
amount of the mortgage was $780, |
as the holder of a tax deed TO the
same tract of land, and which he set
up as a rival claim to the property
w H. Russell was attorney for the
rIa inf Of !
county. also got into the case claim
ing title by virtue of a tax deed The
Cones tax deed was contested on the
ground that 1t covered properly sold
in a lump. and not in separate tracts.
and the Winget tax deed was contested
for a number of technical reasons
The court gave the title to the land
TO Gibson. but held that Winget had a |
lien for S12S.72 and Cones for S25S o.
The case was reopened for the purpose
of further argument on the question of
the liens on the land
The controversy was thereafter be-
tween Gibson and Cones, and Judge
Lobden finally decided that the lien
was invalid. Cones now appeals the
case to the supreme court.
Suit for Valuable Farm Land
Speaker Simmons is attorney for the
plaintiff in error in the case of G. 4.
Finn VS.. Horace w. Howard, from
Wichita county. Finn brought suit
against large number of property
holders to quiet title to many valuable
tracts of land.
Finn got judgment by default to a
large portion of the property involved !
and then Horace w. Howard. one of
the defendants mentioned came INTO
the case, and asked that the Judgment
be set aside because 1.-The court has no
jurisdiction of the person of this de-
PENDANT nor of the subject matter in
volved"
The court held that Towards con-
tention was correct and that the az
fdavit for publication in the case was
fatally defective, and set aside the
Judgment so far as it concerned How
ard Finn now apDeaIS from thiS da