Case Name: In the matter of the Petition of Edward Varner, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1884-01
Citations: 31 Kan. 324
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the matter of the Petition of Edward Varner, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 324–324

Head Matter:
In the matter of the Petition of Edward Varner, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Original Proceedings in Habeas Corpus.
Petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed in this court, December 11,1883, by Edward Varner, who alleged that he was illegally restrained of his liberty by David Worst, sheriff of Allen county. December 3, 1883, Varner was brought before J. A. Christy, a justice of the peace in and for Iola township, in said county, to be tried for assaulting and beating one Henry Everett, contrary to the statute, etc. The defendant filed a special plea in bar, averring a former conviction for the offense charged in the complaint filed against him. This plea, as well as various other forms thereof, the court overruled. December 5, 1883, the defendant objected to the jury — six in number — as not being a legal jury, and protested against being tried by them, which objection the justice overruled. Thereupon the case was tried, the jury found the defendant guilty, and upon the verdict the justice adjudged that he pay a fine of $5, and the costs, taxed at $22. The defendant, refusing to pay the'foregoing judgment, was committed to the jail of Allen county. Varner alleges that his restraint is illegal, (1) because the justice by his rulings deprived him of a proper and legal defense, that of a former conviction; (2) that he was deprived of his right to a trial by a jury of twelve men, and hence that the verdict against him, the judgment thereon, and the commitment issued and executed in pursuance thereof, are each null.
Gordon & Foust, for petitioner.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
Upon the authority of the case In re Lewis, ante, p. 71, the writ in this case will be denied. See also Clark v. Spicer, 6 Kas. 440.