Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/512

 Latest Important Cases Circumstantial Evidence. Murderer

Trailed by Bloodhounds — Evidence Sufi cient to Convict.

Kan.

directing that certain books of the com pany be produced for examination by the grand jury, which was investigating “an alleged violation of the statutesof

The Kansas Supreme Court July 7 upheld the evidence of bloodhounds; if

the United States by Christopher C. Wilson." Wilson appeared in court

the hound had been proven accurate

in following the trail of human foot steps, that evidence was enough, said the Court, to convict.

The decision

came in the appeal of Glen Adams, con victed in November, 1910, in Graham

but declined to allow the grand jury to examine the books, or to turn them over

to the directors of the company for production in court. The ground for his refusal was that the books would tend to incriminate him. He was

County, of the murder of Joseph Ander adjudged in contempt of court. son, a farmer.

Tracks about Ander

The Supreme Court aﬂirmed the action son's home gave the hounds a good trail and they followed it to the Adams home, six miles distant. Some tracks at the Adams house and around Anderson's body corresponded with the shoes Adams wore.

of the Court below. Mr. Justice Hughes.

in announcing the opinion, said that

Wilson lege which couldwould not assert enable a personal him to Privl" with hold the books of the corporation of

The shoes and the hounds were

all the evidence against Adams. Discovery. Privilege Against Self Incriminatian Does not Protect Oﬂicials of Corporations from Order to Produce

Books of the Company in Court—Sub pcena Duces Tecum. U. S. The decision of the United States Supreme Court in Wilson v. U. S., 220 U. S. 614, decided May 15, em

phasized the existence of- a wholesome tendency to cut down abuses of the plea of privilege against self-incrimination, and to prevent technical defenses from blocking the administration of justice. Another example of this tendency is seen in U. S. v. Swift et al.1 in which

District Judge Carpenter declined to give the federal Immunity Act an over indulgent construction. In 1910 a subpoena was served on the United Wireless Telegraph Company

which he was president. The technical question was presented whether the subpaena duces tecum W85 void for not containing an ad testiﬁcan dum clause. On this point the Court said:

“It is urged that its form was unusual and unwarranted, in that it did not require any one to attend and to testify

but simply directed a corporation, which duce could books. not give While oral testimony, a subpoenato Jul?” pro‘ tccum ordinarily contains the ad testi ﬁamdurn clause, this cannot be regarded as essential to its validity. The power to compel the production of documents is, of course, not limited to those cases

where it is sought merely to supplemef1t or aid the testimony of the person re quired to produce them. The produc tion may be enforced independently Of his testimony, and it was held long since that the writ of subpaena duces team

‘23 Green Bag 372

was adequate for this purpose.”

The