City of Lancaster v. Reed

• Decision Date: 16 February 1918
• Docket Number: No. 18930.,18930.
• Citation: 201 S.W. 95
• Parties: CITY OF LANCASTER v. REED.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

201 S.W. 95

CITY OF LANCASTER v. REED.

No. 18930.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

February 16, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Schuyler County; N. M. Pettingill, Judge.

Prosecution by the City of Lancaster against Wes Reed. From judgment sustaining motion to quash the complaint, the City appeals. Case transferred to the Kansas City Court of Appeals.

Claude C. Fogle, of Memphis, for appellant. S. W. Mills, of Kirksville, and Higbee & Mills, of Lancaster, for respondent.

WHITE, C.

The city of Lancaster appeals from the judgment of the circuit court of Schuyler county, sustaining a motion, to quash a complaint filed in said circuit court against the defendant.

The defendant was charged with violating Ordinance 195 of the city of Lancaster. Section 1 of this ordinance provides that any person who shall be guilty of an act of public indecency shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Section 2 defines such an act, and, among other things, provides that whenever two or more persons of opposite sex are associated together upon the sidewalk or streets of the city, one of them being a person of ill repute, such association is an act of indecency within the prohibition of the ordinance. The charge against defendant was that, contrary to the ordinance, he was on the street associating with Edna Geery, a female of ill repute. The motion to quash presented the following grounds:

"(1) Because the ordinance upon which the complaint was based is unconstitutional and void, and infringes upon the rights of personal liberty, and is void.

"(2) Because said complaint charges no crime known to the law, and there is no authority or law on which to base said ordinance, or a complaint on said ordinance, because said ordinance is unconstitutional and void.

"(3) Because the ordinance upon which the complaint is based is absolutely unconstitutional ; and it invades the personal rights of a citizen, and the complaint is therefore void."

The order sustaining this motion states as a reason for the ruling "that the ordinance on which the complaint is based is unreasonable and unconstitutional, and the complaint charges no crime or violation of the law."

The appellant, though not moving to transfer the case, claims that this court has no jurisdiction because the constitutional question which alone would give jurisdiction was not properly raised by the motion to quash. It often has been held by this court that in order to give this court jurisdiction on the ground that the constitutional question is raised, the provision of the Constitution involved must be pointed out. A general reference to the Constitution, state or federal, will not do. The party asserting the jurisdiction "must come into the open and put his finger on the specific provision of the Constitution touched by the adverse ruling" of which he complains. Lohmeyer v. Cordage Co., 214 Mo. loc. cit. 688, 113 S. W. 1108; Independence, to Use, v. Knoepker et al., 205 Mo. loc. cit. 343, 103 S. W. 940; Ash v. City of Independence, 169 Mo. loc. cit. 79, 80, 68 S. W. 888; Excelsior Springs, to Use, v. Ettenson, 188 Mo. loc. cit. 132, 86 S. W. 255; St. Joseph v. Life Ins. Co., 183 Mo....