The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1913-02-11
No. 1915.
The State Of Kansas, Appellee,

The State Of Kansas, Appellee,
A. E. Guthridge, Appellant. =
Appeal from Franklin County.
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. By the Court Johnston. q J.
/. Under an information charging the
defendant with the offense of rape as de-
fined in section 81 of the crimes act there
may be, IL the testimony warrants it. a
conviction of an attempt to commit that
offense although the overt acts done to-
wards the commission OF the offense are
not specifically set forth In the informal
ton.
2 Upon such a charge the court is not
required to instruct the jury as to the
ofense defined in section Il Of the crimes
act which, among other things, includes
the offense of assault with intent to COM
init rape.
3. While an attempt to commit rape 1t,
strictly speaking, not a degree of the
principal onense, no prejudice resulted
from statement in an instruction of the
court in regard to degrees of crime
f. 1t is a principle of law applicable in
ordinary cases that voluntary drunken
ness does not of itself either excuse or
justify crime. When specific intent is
OF the essence or a necessary ingredient
of the onense drunkenness may be shown
in this case affecting defendants conai-
ton and responsibility for his act it is
held that the omission Of an instruction
stating the exceptions to the ordinary
rule is not material error.
All OF the Justices concurring.
true copy.
ArtteSI' y. a. VALENTINE,
tseaLI Clerk Supreme Court.
No. is, 45I.
The State Of Kansas, ex rel. John s
Dawson, as Attorney General, APP
pellant,
rank H. Davis. walter 9. crandell and
" -iliam r. Hawley, as Administrators
ceased, AppelIees.
Appeal from Shawnee County.
Division No. L
AFFIRMED.
Syllabus. BY the Court Mason +
l. Where a statute is open to either
construction, one preventing the exaction
erty in two Jurisdictions should be favor
ed over one having the contrary effect.
2 A provision of a statute that an
Inheritance ttx, otherwise collectible up
on property situated in this state, owned
by the resident of another state at the
time of his death) shall not be exacted
where a similar tax has been paid in
the state of the decedent's residence, pro-
vided the laws OF that state contain q like
exemption. applies in any case where no
such tax would be imposed by SUCH laws
upon similar property there situated,
owned by a resident of Kansas at the
time of his death, however much the
two exemptions may otherwise differ.
8. The Kansas statute provides In SUBJ
stance that ordinarily inheritance tax
shall be collected with respect to prop
erty in this state owned by the resident
of another state at the time of his death
but that IL q similar tax has been paid
in such other state it will not be exacted
here, provided a ike exemption is made
by the laws OF such other state in favor
Of estates of citizens OF this state The
laws Of New York provide in substance
that upon the death of non resident of
that state owning property having a situs
there, an inheritance tax shall be col
Iected in all cases upon such of il Is
tangible, and in no case upon any Of it
that is intangible. including in that term
stock of a corporation. Held, that where
a resident Of New York dies owning
stock in a Kansas corporation, the fact
that an inheritance tax has been paid
thereon in New York is q bar to the col
lection of one here.
All the Justices concurring.
a true copy.
Attest. D. A. VALENTINE,
ISeaIJ Clerk Supreme Court.