City of Holton v. Bimrod
| Decision Date | 07 October 1899 |
| Parties | City of Holton v. Bimrod; HAIST. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Appeals from court of appeals, Northern department, Eastern division.
John Bimrod and Barbara Haist were convicted for the violation of an ordinance of the city of Holton. From judgments of affirmance (55 P. 468,505), they appeal. Appeal dismissed.
Crane & Woodburn, for appellants.
John D. Myers, for appellee.
Jurisdiction of this court is invoked by the appellants for the reason that they were arrested, tried, and convicted in violation of section 15 of the bill of rights in the constitution, which provides: "*** And no warrant shall issue but on probable cause supported by oath or affirmation," etc. The prosecutions were had under a city ordinance prescribing penalties for the keeping and sale of intoxicating liquors except for medical, scientific, and mechanical purposes. The original complaints upon which warrants were issued by the police judge for appellants’ arrest were sworn to positively, and not on information and belief. The appellants sought to introduce testimony showing that the prosecuting witnesses had no personal knowledge of the facts stated in the complaints, for the purpose of proving want of probable cause. Such testimony was not entitled to consideration. The verifications being positive in form, the requirements of the bill of rights were wholly satisfied.
The secret reasons of the prosecuting witnesses for making the complaints could not be inquired into for the purpose of invalidating the warrants. Sufficient probable cause was made to appear to the magistrate for the issuing of the warrants by the charges made and the positive form of the verifications. State v. Moseli, 49 Kan. 142, 30 P. 189; State v. Brooks, 33 Kan. 708, 7 P. 591; State v. Dugan, 52 Kan. 23, 34 P. 409; State v. Carey, 56 Kan. 84, 42 P. 371. There being no question involving the constitution of this state, as required by section 31, c. 84, Gen. St. 1897, to give this court jurisdiction, the appeals must be dismissed. Erb v. Morasch, 60 Kan. 251, 56 P. 133.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilbanks v. State
...967 (1974); State v. Addington, 205 Kan. 640, 644, 472 P.2d 225 (1970); Topeka v. Raynor, 61 Kan. 10, 58 P. 557 (1899); Holton v. Bimrod, 61 Kan. 13, 58 P. 558 (1899); and State v. Brooks, 33 Kan. 708, 711, 7 P. 591 (1885). To whatever extent those cases are inconsistent with the views here......
-
State v. Addington
...by oath or affirmation, is satisfied by the charge made and the positive form of the verification. (K.S.A. 62-602; see City of Holton v. Bimrod, 61 Kan. 13, 58 P. 558.) The allegations of the complaint positively sworn to provided the magistrate sufficient basis for making the requisite fin......
-
Moss v. State
... ... Everts, 112 Mich ... 194, 70 N.W. 430; People v. Rush, 113 Mich. 539, 71 ... N.W. 863; City of Evanston v. Myers, 172 Ill. 266, ... 50 N.E. 204; State v. Jansen, 22 Kan. 498; State ... evidence thereon." ... In ... City of Holton v. Bimrod, 8 Kan. App ... [111 P. 954] ... 265, 55 ... P. 505, which was ... ...
-
State v. Greene
...but on probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, are satisfied. (State v. Addington, 205 Kan. 640, 472 P.2d 255; Holton v. Bimrod, 61 Kan. 13, 58 P. 558.) We find no abuse of discretion in the court's denial of a hearing on probable The defendant next challenges his conviction on gro......