State v. Flack
| Decision Date | 05 March 1892 |
| Citation | 29 P. 571,48 Kan. 146 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. GEORGE FLACK |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Appeal fro Miami District Court.
PROSECUTION for grand larceny. From a conviction at the October term 1891, the defendant, Flack, appeals. The opinion states the facts.
Judgment affirmed.
Carroll & Sheldon & Sheldon, for appellant.
W. H Browne, county attorney, for The State.
OPINION
This was a criminal prosecution, upon an information filed in the district court of Miami county, on July 28, 1891, charging the defendant, George Flack, with the larceny of an iron-gray gelding, and a saddle and bridle, the property of W. A. Tomlinson. A trial was had before the court and a jury, and the defendant was found guilty, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of four years; and from this sentence he now appeals to this. court.
The first objection urged against the proceedings in the court below is, that the information upon which the defendant was tried is insufficient, for the reason that it does not give the full christian name of the alleged owner of the stolen property; and it is also claimed that, upon the trial, there was a variance between the allegations and the proof, in this, that the information alleged that the stolen property belonged to W. A. Tomlinson, while in fact and according to the evidence introduced on the trial it belonged to William A. Tomlinson. W. A. Tomlinson and William A. Tomlinson, however, was one and the same person, and there was no other W. A. Tomlinson in that county, so far as is shown. These objections are untenable. (Ferguson v. Smith, 10 Kan. 396, 401, 402; The State v. Rook, 42 id. 419.) It is seldom at the present time that the full christian name of any man is used. The information in this case was signed and filed by "W. H. Browne," county attorney. It was verified by him in the same manner. It was sworn to before "A. P. Williams," clerk of the district court, and the defendant's transcript brought to this court is certified to by "A. P. Williams," clerk of the district court; and there is nothing in the record to show what the full christian name of either the county attorney or the clerk of the district court is. Besides, the sheriff who had the defendant in charge was "R. E. Matthews;" and the defendant's counsel were Mr. "Carroll," "W. H. Sheldon," and "E. J. Sheldon;" and nine of the jurors that tried the case were "A. J. Ticknor, J. D. Lindsay, N. B. Strainer, J. L. Moore, J. W. Whitaker, W. A. Wilgus, B. F. Cook, J. G. W. Yeater, and W. H. Underhill," and there is nothing in the record to indicate what the full christian names of any of these persons were.
The defendant claims that the court below erred in overruling his challenges to certain jurors for cause. A. J. Ticknor belonged to a society which he says is called "The Osage Township Anti-thief Society," and J. L. Moore belonged to a society which he says is called "The Anti-thief Horse Association." Neither of them had ever taken any oath in connection with such association. This association seems to be a matter of local concern. These two jurors seem to have been competent in every respect, except that they belonged to this association. It does not appear that they could not try the case impartially. On the contrary, it would seem from their answers to questions upon their voir dire that they could try the defendant or any person charged with larceny as impartially as though he were charged with any other offense. There were still others who had been summoned as jurors, and who were first challenged for cause by the defendant, and then peremptorily, and who did not serve as jurors, who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Starke v. State
...of this case. (Abbotts Trial Brief (Crim. Causes) 238; Guy v. State, 96 Md. 692, 54 A. 879; Musick v. People, 40 Ill. 268; State v. Flack, 48 Kan. 146, 29 P. 571; Boyle et al. v. People, 4 Colo. The cases cited by counsel for plaintiff in error are not applicable to the facts as disclosed b......
-
State v. Washington
... ... State, 15 Ariz. 79, 136 P ... 631; Arkansas, McCown v. State, 125 Ark. 597, 188 ... S.W. 547; Georgia, May v. State, 120 Ga. 497, 48 ... S.E. 153; Illinois, Gott v. People, 187 Ill. 249, 58 ... N.E. 293; Indiana, Masterson v. State, 144 Ind. 240, ... 43 N.E. 138; Kansas, State v. Flack, 48 Kan. 146, 29 ... P. 571; Minnesota, State v. Conway, 23 Minn. [169 ... La. 600] 291; Mississippi, Green v. State, 59 Miss ... 501; Missouri, State v. Spaugh, 200 Mo. 571, 98 S.W ... 55; Montana, Territory v. Clayton, 8 Mont. 1, 19 P ... 293; New Mexico, Roper v. Terr., 7 N. M. 255, 33 ... ...
-
Agar v. State
...objection reversible error, nor was there a failure of proof on account of said check being payable to “H. E. Agar, Sec'y.” State v. Flack, 48 Kan. 146, 147, 148, 29 Pac. 571, and cases cited; Little v. People, 157 Ill. 153, 155, 156, 42 N. E. 389;State v. Short, 54 Iowa, 392, 6 N. W. 584;F......
-
Agar v. State
... ... There was not such a variance between ... the allegation and the proof as made the admission of the ... check in evidence over appellant's objection reversible ... error, nor was there a failure of proof because said check ... was payable to "H. E. Agar, Sec'y." ... State v. Flack (1892), 48 Kan. 146, 147, ... 148, 29 P. 571, and cases cited; Little v ... People (1895), 157 Ill. 153, 155, 156, 42 N.E. 389; ... State v. Short [176 Ind. 251] (1880), 54 ... Iowa 392, 6 N.W. 584; Franklin v. State ... (1897), 37 Tex. Crim. 312, 314, 39 S.W. 680; Leonard ... ...