228 N.W. 326 (Minn. 1929), 27,380, State ex rel. Olson v. Guilford

Docket Number27,380
Date20 December 1929
PartiesSTATE EX REL. FLOYD B. OLSON v. HOWARD A. GUILFORD AND OTHERS
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

Page 326

228 N.W. 326 (Minn. 1929)

179 Minn. 40

STATE EX REL. FLOYD B. OLSON

v.

HOWARD A. GUILFORD AND OTHERS

No. 27,380

Supreme Court of Minnesota

December 20, 1929

Defendant J. M. Near appealed from a judgment of the district court for Hennepin county, Baldwin, J. adjudging the publication known as The Saturday Press, conducted by him and the defendant Guilford, to be a nuisance and permanently enjoining them and all other persons claiming any interest therein from further conducting the same. Affirmed, following State ex rel. Olson v. Guilford, 174 Minn. 457, 219 N.W. 770.

SYLLABUS

L. 1925, c. 285, authorizing abatement of scandalous newspaper, constitutional.

L. 1925, c. 285, does not violate the due process of law guaranty contained in our state and federal constitutions, nor does it violate our constitutional provision for the freedom of the press. State ex rel. Olson v. Guilford, 174 Minn. 457, 219 N.W. 770, followed.

Constitutional Law, 12 C.J. § 1085 p 1278 n. 54.

Latimer & Latimer, Kirkland, Fleming, Green & Martin, Weymouth Kirkland, Louis G. Caldwell, Edward C. Caldwell, Howard Ellis and Charles F. Rathbun, for appellant.

Floyd B. Olson, County Attorney, and William C. Larson, Assistant County Attorney, for respondent.

OPINION

[179 Minn. 41] WILSON, C.J.

Defendant J. M. Near appealed from an adverse judgment.

The action was to abate a nuisance, arising out of the operation of a newspaper business, as authorized by L. 1925, p. 358, c. 285. The cause has been here before, 174 Minn. 457, 219 N.W. 770, 58 A.L.R. 607. Presumably an evil, inimical to the public welfare, existed in this state which the legislature intended to remedy. No claim is advanced that the method and character of the operation of the newspaper in question was not a nuisance if the statute is constitutional. It was regularly and customarily devoted largely to malicious, scandalous and defamatory matter.

The claim is advanced that the statute is in contravention of art. 1, § 3, of our state constitution relating to the liberty of the press, and also that it violates the due process clause of both art. 1, § 7, of our state constitution and the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States. In our opinion L. 1925, p. 358, c. 285, violates neither the state nor the federal constitution. The record presents the same questions, upon which we have already passed. Our former opinion will disclose other...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT