State v. Oliver
| Citation | 41 P. 954,55 Kan. 711 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. C. W. OLIVER |
| Decision Date | 05 October 1895 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Appeal from Reno District Court.
C. W OLIVER was convicted of train-wrecking, and sentenced to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for four years. He appeals. The facts appear in the opinion, filed October 5 1895.
Judgment affirmed.
Davidson & Williams, for appellant.
F.B Dawes, attorney general, and L.M. Fall county attorney, for The State.
OPINION
The information, omitting the formal parts, is as follows:
"That on the 20th day of September, 1894, in said county of Reno and state of Kansas, one C. W. Oliver did then and there unlawfully, feloniously and willfully remove, displace and injure certain rails on the track of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company, and then and there being operated by said Santa Fe railroad company, a corporation duly organized under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Kansas, through and by its receivers, by removing from fish-plates and drawing spikes from both sides of rails, and prying rails out of line, with the intent and for the purpose of derailing and wrecking the trains of said railroad company and injuring it, and for the purpose of and with the intent to kill and wound its passengers and employees."
The information in this form was filed on the 19th of September, 1894. Afterward, by leave of the court, it was amended by inserting the word "bolts," between the words "removing" and "from." It was then reverified and refiled on the 4th day of January, 1895. A motion to quash the information was made before the amendment, and renewed afterward, on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense under the laws of the state. It will be noticed that the offense is alleged to have been committed on the 20th day of September, 1894, while the original information was filed on the 19th day of the same month. It is urged that the charge as originally made, was an impossibility, because the offense was alleged as committed in the future. Authorities are cited to sustain the proposition that such a charge is bad, and that a conviction under it cannot be upheld. On the other hand, it is said that the date alleged is clearly a mere clerical error which may be disregarded.
We do not think that the record presents the question fairly. The defendant was tried on the amended information. That amended information was filed in January, 1895, long after the day on which the offense is alleged to have been committed. It is urged that this refiling was without the consent of the court, but we think permission to amend the information carried with it necessarily permission to file it. It was necessary that the information as amended should be verified, and the practice of refiling after amendment and verification seems to be a proper one.
Further objections are made to the form of the information, because it charges that the offense was committed with the intent to injure the company and its passengers and employees, while the section of the statute under which the information was drawn defines an offense against property only; that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Speyer
... ... competent either as admissions or for the purpose of ... contradicting him. They were voluntary statements explanatory ... of his connection with the transaction, and it was immaterial ... when or where they were made. To the same effect is State ... v. Oliver, 55 Kan. 711, 41 P. 954. There was no ... objection made at the time as to the mode of proving the ... defendant's former testimony, nor was objection made to ... the reading of the testimony beyond the part identified by ... the stenographer, and it cannot be made for the first time in ... ...
-
State v. Donahue, 47810
...resorts to falsehood is a circumstance which may, in connection with other facts in the case, tend to prove guilt.' (State v. Oliver, 55 Kan. 711, p. 714, 41 P. 954, p. 955.) 'The former testimony of the defendant was properly admitted for the purpose approved herein and no error has been s......
-
State v. Kimes
...N.W. 1159; State v. Van Tassel, 103 Iowa 6, 72 N.W. 497; People v. Arnold, 43 Mich. 303 (5 N.W. 385, 38 Am. St. Rep. 182); State v. Oliver, 55 Kan. 711 (41 P. 954); v. Simmons, 78 Kan. 852 (98 P. 277). III. On the former trial one Kubias testified against the defendant, and on the present t......
-
State v. Kimes
...N. W. 1159;State v. Van Tassel, 103 Iowa, 6, 72 N. W. 497;People v. Arnold, 43 Mich. 303, 5 N. W. 385, 38 Am. St. Rep. 182;State v. Oliver, 55 Kan. 711, 41 Pac. 954;State v. Simmons, 78 Kan. 852, 98 Pac. 277. [3] 3. On the former trial one Kubias testified against the defendant, and on the ......