State v. Kingsley

• Decision Date: 02 February 1892
• Citation: 18 S.W. 994,108 Mo. 135
• Parties: STATE v. KINGSLEY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

18 S.W. 994

108 Mo. 135

STATE v. KINGSLEY.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

February 2, 1892.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL — TITLE OF ACT — SPECIAL LEGISLATION — OBTAINING BOARD BY FRAUD.

1. Act Gen. Assem., (Sess. Acts 1891, p. 159, § 1,) providing that "every person who shall obtain board or lodging in any hotel * * * by means of any trick or deception or false or fraudulent representation, * * * and shall fail or refuse to pay therefor, shall be held to have obtained the same with intent to cheat and defraud such hotel-keeper, * * * and shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor," does not deprive accused of a right to jury trial, as guarantied by Const. art. 2, § 22.

2. The title to the above act clearly expresses the subject of the act.

3. The act does not discriminate against persons obtaining board or lodging at hotels or boarding-houses. It is uniform in its application, operating on all alike who come within its provisions.

4. A woman who goes to an hotel and is assigned a room, where she remains for two days, and then sends for the manager, and tells him that she expects a remittance in about two weeks, and the manager tells her that he will accept the check she expects in payment for her board, without inquiring the name of the person from whom the check is expected, cannot be convicted under the above act of obtaining board by a trick or false pretense.

Error to St. Louis criminal court; J. R. CLAIBORNE, Judge.

Mrs. L. A. Kingsley was convicted of obtaining board at an hotel by means of a trick and false pretenses, and brings error. Reversed.

Adams & Rowland and E. W. Banister, for plaintiff in error. John M. Wood, Atty. Gen., and Bernard Dierkes, Pros. Atty., (Thos. B. Harvey, of counsel,) for the State.

THOMAS, J.

Defendant was sentenced by the St. Louis court of criminal correction to 10 days' imprisonment in the jail of the city of St. Louis for obtaining board at the Southern Hotel in that city by means of a trick, etc., and failing to pay for the same. A constitutional question was raised, and hence defendant brings her case to this court, instead of the St. Louis court of appeals, for review.

1. The contention is that the act of the last general assembly, (Sess. Acts 1891, p. 159,) entitled "An act to protect hotel and inn keepers," is unconstitutional — "First, because it is in conflict with section 22 of article 2, constitution of Missouri, and denies defendant a trial by jury, as contemplated by said section; second, because said act denies to defendant an impartial trial, in this: that it prescribes for the offense named therein a different rule of evidence, and a different punishment, from that established for a like offense when committed against any other person than an hotel or inn keeper; third, because the subject of the act is not clearly expressed in its title." The first section of the act under which this prosecution is had is as follows: "Every person who shall obtain board or lodging in any hotel or boarding-house by means of any trick or deception, or false or fraudulent representation or statement or pretense, and shall fail or refuse to pay therefor, shall be held to have obtained the same with the intent to cheat and defraud such hotel or boarding-house keeper, and shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor." We do not think this act denies the accused the right of trial by jury of any fact constituting an essential element of the crime denounced by it. The crime consists in obtaining board or lodging by a trick, etc., and failing to pay therefor. It must be left to the triers of the fact whether the board was so obtained, and not paid for. These facts, when proved, are declared by this act to be evidence of an intent to cheat and defraud; and this the legislature had the power to do. Com. v. Williams, 6 Gray, 1; State v. Hurley, 54 Me. 562; State v. Day, 37 Me. 244; Bish. St. Cr. § 1050; Whart. Crim. Ev. § 715; 26 Alb. Law J. 63, and cases cited. It may be conceded that the legislature has no power to create artificial presumptions of guilt, but the act in question does not do this, nor attempt to do it. No affirmative right of the citizen is denied or taken away. It is morally wrong to obtain board "by means of a trick or deception, or false or fraudulent representation or statement or pretense;" and hence it is competent for the law-making power to declare it a crime, and provide for its punishment. State v. Burgdoerfer, (Mo. Sup.) 17 S. W. Rep. 646. A presumption of an intent to cheat and defraud, arising from the fact that board is obtained by means of a trick, etc., is not an artificial, but a probable and reasonable, one, and the authorities above cited are to the effect that such a presumption may be declared by statute.

2. The second contention is that the title does not clearly express the subject of the act in question. We do not think this point well taken. State v. Burgdoerfer, supra.

3. It is urged that the act is unconstitutional because it discriminated against persons obtaining board or lodging at an hotel or boarding-house, and makes the rules of evidence of this offense much less stringent than in other cases of false pretenses. This position is not tenable. This act is uniform in its application, operating upon...