State v. Medley

• Decision Date: 09 February 1895
• Citation: State v. Medley, 54 Kan. 627, 39 P. 227 (Kan. 1895)
• Parties: THE STATE OF KANSAS v. JOHN H. MEDLEY
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

39 P. 227

54 Kan. 627

THE STATE OF KANSAS v. JOHN H. MEDLEY

Supreme Court of Kansas

February 9, 1895

Appeal from Wabaunsee District Court.

THE opinion herein, filed February 9, 1895, states the material facts.

Judgment affirmed.

Geo. G Cornell, for appellant.

John T Little, attorney general, and J. H. Jones, county attorney for The State.

JOHNSTON J.All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, J.:

On the 3d day of October, 1894, John H. Medley was convicted upon a charge of stealing a yearling steer, the property of Thomas C. Finney, and the penalty adjudged was imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of three years.He appeals, and alleges two grounds of error: One, that the testimony is insufficient to sustain the conviction; and the other, that the instructions given were misleading and improper.

The conviction rests largely upon circumstantial evidence, but in our view it is sufficient to uphold the verdict and judgment.On Friday, June 1, 1894, the steer was seen in the pasture with others, and on the next morning the pasture fence, which was made of wire, had been cut and taken down, and the steer was missing.Late on Friday evening, Simpson (a butcher) and the defendant were seen going from the town of Paxico toward the pasture, each of them riding a horse.Later on the same night, they were seen by another returning to Paxico with an animal which looked like the one taken from the pasture, one of them leading and the other driving it.At a still later time on the same night, they were seen by another witness killing a steer which, in size, sex, and color, corresponded with the one taken from the pasture.A few days afterward, in response to an inquiry made by Finney, the owner of the steer, the defendant denied that he butchered a steer on Friday night, and his answers concerning the matter were evasive and conflicting.Then there is testimony that the defendant went to the house of one Griffith, and attempted by promise of reward, to induce Griffith to tell Finney, who had lost the steer, that he(Griffith) had sold to another a similar steer, stating at the same time that Finney was making a great howl about the loss of a steer, and that if Griffith would make this statement to Finney it would quiet the matter and he would look no further.It may be further remarked, that at the place where the wires were cut and the steer taken out were the tracks of two...