Barber County Kansas
|
Barber County Kansas |
|
Wm. Twombley was fined $5 and costs last Friday evening by Justice Collins after pleading guilty to a charge of obtaining money under false pretense preferred against him by County Attorney Tincher on complaint of Waldron Chase. As stated in the Index last week, the act for which Twombley was arrested was the giving of an order for $5 on Watkins & Chenoweth which the latter firm refused to honor, claiming that they did not owe it.The trial was set for the 29th, but by mutual consent a motion to quash the complaint was taken up on Friday afternoon on the ground that it did not state a cause of action. Samuel Griffin, Mr. Twombley's attorney contended that the credit obtained on Mr. Chase's books by virtue of the order did not amount to a crime under the statute and therefore Twombley should be released - in other words the credit was nothing carrying value with it.
When both sides were argued Judge Collins announced that he would take the matter under advisement until Saturday at 3 o'clock.
But later in the evening there was something doing and it was not long until Mr. Twombley was out of jail and he had relieved himself of the three V's. And all this transpired without the Knowledge of Twombley's attorney, Samuel Griffin. While Sam was enjoying a good supper and in fact had a right to believe that the case was going his way, the county attorney was doing a trick or town on the guy ropes. Just how it was done is a thing known to few but anyhow somebody got "next" to Twombley and convinced him that the time was ripe to plead guilty. When Mr. Griffin heard of it, there were several emphatic expressions. He said his client had all along professed to be "game" and he did not even suspect that he could be induced to plead guilty.
To say the least, Mr. Griffin, is very much vexed at the treatment he received, especially the manner in which the county attorney acted. He said he never before was treated so shabbily and never in his experience has any lawyer been guilty of anything so unprofessional. He says out of common courtesy a client's lawyer should be consulted when a case is settled and Mr. Tincher's failure and refusal to observe the rule on this occasion can not be explained or justified.
Barber County Index, July 1, 1903. Tempest in a Tea-Pot.
The Medicine Lodge Cresset and The Attica Independent are going out of their way in their mud slinging campaign against Sheriff Haun. The latest spasm is on account of an alleged abuse of Will Twombley received at the Sheriff's hands when he got him at Attica. The principal source of grievance is the fact that the sheriff put hand cuffs on the prisoner. There is no reason why any sensible man should criticize the sheriff for this. He had been warned by the prisoner's relatives to be careful or he would get away, that he was an ex-convict, having served a term in the Iowa penitentiary, and would take chances to get away. Sheriff Haun thought that this was sufficient to warrant handcuffing. He brought him at night, and one leap into darkness would have meant his escape in all probability. Suppose that he had not use the cuffs and Twombley had gotten away or the sheriff would have had to shoot him in preventing his escape, what a howl would have gone up from these partisans in that event!
The statement was also made that Twombley is a mere boy 16 years of age. This statement is absolutely false. He is 24 years of age, active, shrewd and cunning. It was also stated that the sheriff abused him. The sheriff says it was just the opposite. He says Twombley was impudent, cursed him and refused to obey him, and it was necessary at one time for Mr. Haun to take hold of him and compel him to go with him. That was the only instance in which he used force.
Whatever censure there has been is political effect. When a sheriff has a warrant for a man, it is his duty to get him if he can. If he thinks his man is of such a character that he may attempt to escape, he has a perfect right to use the handcuffs. That is what they are made for. If the charge was too severe, it is not the sheriff's fault. We do not see where in anybody has a good cause to criticize Sheriff Haun, in the light of the facts in the case.
Thanks to Shirley Brier for finding, transcribing and contributing the above news article to this web site!
|
|
|