The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1910-11-22
ANOTHER
JOLT FOR
OIL. TECH
CRIMINAL COURT DENIES
NEW TRIAL ON
TECHNICALLY

lu the criminal court Of appeals,
Presiding Judge Furman today handed
down ali opinion III The case Of Thom-
al Williams ". State. rom Muskogee
county, in which the courts intention
ui getting al the right and justice OF
each case and not deciding on mere
technicalities is strongly shown The
defendant in the lower court was con-
plcted Of numbering his wife near
faft III Muskogee county. The evi-
dence showed ,...s he had quarreIled
WITH her and gone TO Mulkogee. On
his return to 1att, he found his wife
waiting for him In the buggy They
rode a piece toward their home a
Witness testified TO hearing him curse
his wife and then seeing nim get Out
and shoot her. lhe defendant claim
ca that he got ont OF the buggy TO
shoot 4 hawk and shot his wife ac-
cidentally His coWnsel strenuonsly oh
jectcd to the introduction Of the evi-
aence as TO the defendant pointing
his gun at other people, claiming It
@as d separate offcnse, but the court
asid:
ANY fact Is admissible in evidence
which tends to shed light upon the
Intention OF q defendant in the com
mission of IN act for which he is on
trial, even though ii may prove a
separate and independent crime.
This is about as far as any court
has ever gone along this line and
shows that our criminal court of APP
peals Is Of the opinion that technical
ties are thing Of the past pnless
they affect directly, or indirectly,
some fundamental right Of the defen-
dant, so far as this court is concern
ed
Other Opinions BY Furman.
The court OF criminal appeals hand
ed down additional opinions this af
tefnoon, among them an opinion deny
ing John Hopkins a rehearing and af-
firming the sentence OF death nj the
Comanche county district court.
In the case Of Charley Thompson n.
State from Muskogee, the decision OF
the lower court was reversed I'm an
opinion by Presiding Judge Furman.
An information was filed against
/ ihompeon before statehood charging
him with forgery and he was tried.
convicted and sentenced to seven
years in the penitaltiary. The court
held that under the provision OF the
Enabling Act, crimes previous tt
statehood must be punished pns.er the
law then IN force and thai the only
way to have prosecuted for forgery
would have been under an indiet
ment by grand jury.
Judge Furman also handed dow
the following decisions, all for viola
tions OF the prohibitory iaw:
X. II. Morris V. state. Muskoget
county, sentence of 40 days .mprison
ment and $500 fine; affirmed.
Ray Coyle, Garfield county, sen
fence OF 80 days Imprisonment an,
$50 fine; affirmed.
, John Etter V. State, Ottawa coun
~, sentence of thirty days in jail ant
$50 fine; appeal dismissed.
j. e. Childers V. State, Ottaws
county. sentence Of 30 days in jai
and $50 fine, affirmed.
w. NJ. Noyllu v. State, Clevelane
/ county, sentence of 80 days in jai
and $50 fine, affirmed
i William Coyle, V. State, Garfield
county, fined y300. and sentenced t1
80 days In Jail for keeping hous,
where liquor was sold, affirmed. The
troubles of Coyle surely show tina
the way OF the transgessor is hare
in the criminal court of appeals. fol
so far this term. II has affirmed sen
tences against him ammountiHg te
eighteen months in jail and fifteen
hundred dollars in fines, all for yio
lations of the liquor laws.
Other Opinions BY Richardson.
Besides the per curian opinion in
| the John Hopkins case. Judge Richard
sonrendered the following opinions
In re Ben Tucker, application TO
| habeas corpus from Jackson county
where fucker was in Jail for viola
tion Of the liduor laws. the application
vas denied and he was remandet
bsek to custody.
Harry Deeds from Caddo count,
had better luck. He was convicted o.
ceiling liquor ana the fact that hs
had taken ont a federal liquor license
after the date fixed by the state was
given in evidence. The court helt
that error as the oifense was sup
posed to have been committed preyi
ious to that time and his case was
reversed and remanded.
Joe Elliott also from Caddo county
was convicted OF manslaughter in the
second degree rrder instructions OF
the court where he was only on trial
for manslaughter in the first degree
He was accused of knocking man
down and killing him and the eyi
denee showed that he knocked him
down and horse trampled him 1
deatn The court said that while ne
might be guilty of a crime he wa
clearly not guilty as charged in The
- 80