State v. Lawrence

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas
Writing for the CourtJOHNSTON, J.:
Citation23 P. 157,43 Kan. 125
Decision Date08 February 1890
PartiesTHE STATE OF KANSAS v. JAMES T. LAWRENCE

23 P. 157

43 Kan. 125

THE STATE OF KANSAS
v.

JAMES T. LAWRENCE

Supreme Court of Kansas

February 8, 1890


Appeal from Barber District Court.

APPEAL by The State from the rulings of the district court quashing an information. The information, omitting the heading and verification, is as follows:

"Comes now R. A. Cameron, the undersigned county attorney of the said county of Barber, and in the name and by the authority of the state of Kansas gives the court to understand and be informed that on the 23d day of April, 1889, at the county of Barber and state aforesaid, one Harry W. Stevens, then and there being the under-sheriff of the said county, brought one L. M. Spencer before O. C. Howe, then and there being one of the justices of the peace within and for the said county; and the said L. M. Spencer was then and there charged before the said O. C. Howe by one A. D. Mercer, upon the oath of the said Mercer, that the said L. M. Spencer had then lately before, on the 15th day of April, 1889, at the county of Barber and state of Kansas aforesaid, committed the crime of embezzlement, by then and there unlawfully and feloniously taking, secreting and making away with the property of Parlin & Orendorff Company, a corporation duly existing and organized under the laws of the state of Illinois; and the said L. M. Spencer was then and there held for examination before the said O. C. Howe, the justice of the peace aforesaid, touching the said offense so to him charged as aforesaid, the hearing of which examination was adjourned to the 1st day of May, 1889, and the said L. M. Spencer was required by the said justice of the peace to enter into a recognizance in the sum of $ 2,500, for his appearance at that time, and the said L. M. Spencer failing to give such recognizance, was by the said justice of the peace duly adjudged to stand committed to the jail of said county in default thereof; and the said justice of the peace duly issued his order of commitment therefor, which order of commitment is of date and in words and figures as follows, to wit:

"'THE STATE OF KANSAS, Plaintiff, v. L. M. SPENCER, Defendant.--Before O. C. Howe, a Justice of the Peace of Medicine Lodge Township, in Barber County, Kansas.--State of Kansas, Barber County, ss.--The State of Kansas, to the Sheriff or any Constable of said County, Greeting: Whereas, upon good cause shown, the above cause was, this 23d day of April, 1889, continued for trial to the 1st day of May, 1889, at nine o'clock A. M., at my office in said township, and the said defendant, L. M. Spencer, was by me required to enter into recognizance in the sum of $ 2,500, with sufficient sureties, for his appearance at such time and place to answer the complaint in said cause alleged against him; and said defendant did fail and refuse to enter into said recognizance:

"'You are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • State v. Paine, 24,157
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • July 8, 1922
    ...implied that each defendant had knowledge of the lawful confinement of the other. That made the information good. (The State v. Lawrence, 43 Kan. 125, 23 P. 157.) The information charged an offense under section 3564 of the General Statutes of 1915. [111 Kan. 797] 2. The defendants argue th......
  • State v. Sutton, No. 21,186.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 26, 1908
    ...be alleged.” The other cases, cited by appellee on this point, cite and follow Commonwealth v. Filburn, supra. In State v. Lawrence, 43 Kan. 125, 23 Pac. 157, also cited by appellee, it was not alleged that the accused had knowledge that the prisoner was in legal custody, nor were the acts ......
  • King v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 22, 1900
    ...following substantially its language without further expansion will be sufficient. Com. v. Filburn, 119 Mass. 297; State v. Lawrence, 43 Kan. 125, 23 P. 157; Vaughan v. State, 9 Tex. App. 563. A person may in several ways aid a prisoner to escape from lawful custody without knowledge of the......
3 cases
  • State v. Paine, 24,157
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • July 8, 1922
    ...implied that each defendant had knowledge of the lawful confinement of the other. That made the information good. (The State v. Lawrence, 43 Kan. 125, 23 P. 157.) The information charged an offense under section 3564 of the General Statutes of 1915. [111 Kan. 797] 2. The defendants argue th......
  • State v. Sutton, No. 21,186.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 26, 1908
    ...be alleged.” The other cases, cited by appellee on this point, cite and follow Commonwealth v. Filburn, supra. In State v. Lawrence, 43 Kan. 125, 23 Pac. 157, also cited by appellee, it was not alleged that the accused had knowledge that the prisoner was in legal custody, nor were the acts ......
  • King v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • May 22, 1900
    ...following substantially its language without further expansion will be sufficient. Com. v. Filburn, 119 Mass. 297; State v. Lawrence, 43 Kan. 125, 23 P. 157; Vaughan v. State, 9 Tex. App. 563. A person may in several ways aid a prisoner to escape from lawful custody without knowledge of the......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT