City of Salina v. Cooper
| Decision Date | 06 December 1890 |
| Citation | 45 Kan. 12,25 P. 233 |
| Parties | THE CITY OF SALINA v. F. W. COOPER |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Saline District Court.
PROSECUTION for selling intoxicating liquors contrary to the ordinances of the City of Salina. The defendant Cooper appeals from a judgment against him at the June term, 1890. The opinion states the facts.
Judgment reversed.
J. G Mohler, for appellant.
W. T Frazier, and Garver & Bond, for appellee.
OPINION
This is a criminal appeal from Saline county. The defendant was arraigned in the police court of the city of Salina, a city of the second class, to answer four complaints filed against him, charging him with unlawfully bartering, selling and giving away intoxicating liquors, contrary to the ordinances of the city. It appears from the record that the defendant pleaded guilty to each one of the complaints, and sentence was duly passed upon him, and entered of record. After conviction and sentence, he filed a motion, supported by affidavit, for leave to withdraw the former pleas of' guilty, and enter a plea of not guilty to each complaint. This motion was denied. The case was then appealed to the district court. When application was again made to withdraw the pleas of guilty and enter pleas of not guilty, which was refused, the appellant then interposed his plea to the jurisdiction of the court. The facts, as claimed by the appellant, material to the application for leave to withdraw the pleas of' not guilty, as well as the plea to the jurisdiction of the court, are: That when arrested by the city marshal he was immediately taken before the police judge, who read to him the four complaints and asked him if' he was guilty; that appellant admitted that he sold beer in the city of Salina, in the original packages in which they had been shipped into the state, and upon being pressed to answer whether he was guilty or not, said he was guilty of selling beer in original packages; that upon making such admission, the police judge accepted the same as a plea of guilty upon each complaint; that when arrested, he became very much excited, and was not asked by the court if he wanted counsel, neither was he given an opportunity to employ anyone to appear for him; that there was a large crowd in the court-room, and but a short time was consumed from the period when he was brought before the court until judgment was entered against him in the four cases; that appellant was not guilty of selling intoxicating liquors in violation of law or the ordinances of the city of Salina, and did not admit that he sold intoxicating liquor in violation of law or the ordinances of the city; that he was and is a citizen of the state of Missouri, and agent of the Ferd. Heim Brewing Company, of Kansas City, Missouri, a corporation of the state of Missouri, duly chartered under the laws of said state; that the business of said corporation is to brew, manufacture and sell lager beer, an intoxicating liquor; that said corporation brewed a lot of lager beer and put it in original packages and sent a car-load of their product from their brewery, in Kansas City, in the state of Missouri, in original packages, as made up at said brewery, where the same was manufactured, to Salina, in Saline county, Kansas, in charge of the defendant, as agent for said importers, the Ferd. Heim Brewing Company; that said goods were in original packages in a store-room leased by defendant, as agent of said brewing company; that all the selling, bartering or giving away by defendant of beer in Salina was the selling and bartering of the same, in original packages, and lawful under the laws and constitution of the United States.
The plea to the jurisdiction was also overruled, and the defendant was thereupon sentenced, upon the plea of guilty entered in the police court, and adjudged to pay a fine of fifty dollars, and stand committed until such fine and costs were paid. The appellant asks a reversal of this sentence and judgment.
I. The first assignment of error which we shall notice, is the action of the court below in overruling and denying the motion of the appellant for leave to withdraw the pleas of guilty, entered by the police judge, and enter the pleas of not guilty. The cases were on appeal from the police court and the district court seemed to have considered them just as they came from the police judge, with the plea of guilty standing against the defendant in each case. Was it manifest error for the court to refuse this request? It appears from the uncontradicted statement of the appellant that he had been arraigned before the police judge in the presence of a large crowd; was very much excited, and was not asked whether he wanted an attorney; neither was he given an opportunity to secure one, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Arnold
... ... 855; ... 16 C. J. 397, sec. 730; State v. Nicholas, 46 Mont ... 470, 128 P. 543; City of Salina v. Cooper, 45 Kan ... 12, 25 P. 233; State v. Coston, 113 La. 717, 37 So ... 619; ... ...
-
State v. Raponi
... ... (State v ... Nicholas, 46 Mont. 470, 128 P. 543; City of Salina ... v. Cooper, 45 Kan. 12, 25 P. 233; State v ... Allen, 41 Wash. 63, 82 P. 1036; Pope ... ...
-
People v. Crandell
...prevented them from being accorded their constitutional rights to consult counsel.’ And in that case we quoted from City of Salina v. Cooper, 45 Kan. 12, 25 P. 233, as follows: ‘We think the court below, upon this showing, should have sustained the motion, and permitted the defendant to wit......
-
State v. Oberst
...that he had an undoubted right to such aid, and that no verdict could be sustained where it was refused." (p. 734.) In The City of Salina v. Cooper, 45 Kan. 12, 25 P. 233, the defendant was arrested and brought before the judge on a charge of violating a liquor ordinance. He pleaded guilty ......