Commission Row Club v. Lambert

• Decision Date: 05 May 1942
• Docket Number: No. 25912.,25912.
• Citation: 161 S.W.2d 732
• Parties: COMMISSION ROW CLUB v. LAMBERT et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

161 S.W.2d 732

COMMISSION ROW CLUB v. LAMBERT et al.

No. 25912.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 5, 1942.

Rehearing Denied May 29, 1942.

Error to St. Louis Circuit Court; Eugene J. Padberg, Judge.

"Not to be reported in State Reports."

Suit by Commission Row Club against Albert Bond Lambert and others, as members and constituting the Board of Police Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police Department of the City of St. Louis, John J. Carroll, as Chief of Detectives of the Metropolitan Police Department of the City of St. Louis, and John Glassco, Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department of the City of St. Louis, to restrain defendants and their agents from entering, trespassing, raiding, damaging plaintiff's property or arresting plaintiff's members or guests. To review an adverse decree, defendants bring error.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Joseph F. Holland and Oliver Senti, both of St. Louis, for plaintiffs in error.

Roberts P. Elam and Hinkel & Carey, all of St. Louis, for defendant in error.

HUGHES, Presiding Judge.

The case is before this court by way of a writ of error issued out of this court at the behest of the Board of Police Commissioners, the Chief of Police, and the Chief of Detectives of the City of St. Louis, who were defendants in an injunction suit instituted by the Commission Row Club, a corporation, and wherein the plaintiff sought to restrain such officials, and their agents and subordinates, from entering, trespassing, raiding and damaging plaintiff's property, or arresting plaintiff's members or guests, or molesting or intimidating said members or guests, or restraining any of them of their liberty, unless an indictment, information or warrant be issued against them by the duly constituted authorities as empowered to do, or unless a crime is committed on the premises occupied by plaintiff.

An understanding of the issues will be more easily grasped by referring to defendant in error as the plaintiff, and plaintiffs in error as the defendants, which was their proper designation in the circuit court.

Plaintiff's petition, filed November 16, 1940, states that it is a corporation organized for social, educational and benevolent purposes and that it has and maintains a meeting place for the members and guests located at 1139-41 North Third Street, in the City of St. Louis; that it has approximately seventy-five members, and that the members and their guests attend the club for the purpose of entertainment and relaxation; that all of said members are law abiding citizens with business interests in the community; that it has expended several thousand dollars in furnishing a comfortable meeting place and lounge for its members and guests, who have been accustomed to meet and gather at the club rooms for the purpose of discussion and participating in recreational pursuits such as table tennis and other games; that on the 13th day of November, 1940, certain members of the Police Department, names unknown, but acting under authority and direction of the defendants, unlawfully and without just, reasonable or legal cause raided the premises and arrested six members of the club, and caused them to be taken to the police station and required them to furnish bail and said police officers never applied to the prosecuting authorities for a warrant or indictment against plaintiff or any of its members for any criminal offense, felony or misdemeanor, nor was the club or any of its members charged or arrested for any specific criminal offense or any offense whatsoever under the statutes of the state, or under the laws of any other state or government; that said officers unlawfully and without warrant of law, and without just cause or legal excuse, unlawfully entered said premises and unlawfully trespassed upon the premises and property of plaintiff and its members, and while on said illegal mission, unlawfully and maliciously damaged property owned by plaintiff in effecting their entrance to plaintiff's premises.

The petition continuing further states: That subsequently, and on the same day, certain members of the police department, names unknown, acting under direction and authority of the defendants, unlawfully, maliciously and without just, reasonable or legal cause, came upon said premises and advised plaintiff's members that they would continue to arrest members and their guests who had occasion to visit and be present in plaintiff's premises, and that an order had been issued by officers of the police department acting on behalf of the defendants, directing members of the police department to enter and search said premises continuously at intervals of one hour each day, and that thereafter said officers have threatened to continue such unlawful visits and to harass the members of said club without just cause or legal excuse in the future, and that said threats were made on the 14th day of November, 1940.

Upon the filing of plaintiff's petition on November 16, 1940, the court issued its order to defendants to show cause why a temporary injunction should not issue, and on December 5, 1940, defendants filed objections to the jurisdiction of the court, which objections were overruled on the 9th day of December, 1940. Thereafter on the 12th day of December, 1940, the defendants filed their joint return to the order to show cause, which joint return was, on the same day, refiled as defendants' answer to plaintiff's petition.

The answer, after a general denial of the allegations of the petition, stated: That in the arrest of plaintiff's members the police officers had reasonable grounds to suspect and did suspect that the laws of the state had been violated by plaintiff; that if plaintiff had grounds for complaint it also had an adequate remedy at law; that the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in equity; that plaintiff in the operation of the Commission Row Club had been and was engaged in the nefarious and illegal activity of gambling; and that plaintiff did not come into court with clean hands and that its petition should be dismissed.

Trial was had on December 12, 1940, without a preliminary injunction having ever been ordered, and thereafter, on December 17, 1940, the court entered the following order and decree, to-wit:

"Wherefore, It Is Ordered, Decreed and Adjudged by the Court That:

"That the defendants and each of them, and all police officers under their direction and control, in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, be and hereby are permanently enjoined and restrained from unlawfully entering or trespassing in or upon the premises occupied by the plaintiff club located at 1139-41 North Third Street, St. Louis, Missouri, and from carrying away personal property from the premises of the club without warrant of seizure, and from unlawfully threatening to arrest members of said club while on said premises and while said members are engaged in the proper activities of said club, and exercising their privileges as members thereof and from interfering with the plaintiff in the proper and lawful conduct of its activities, and from unlawfully arresting, intimidating or interfering with plaintiff or its members on said premises unless an indictment, information or warrant be issued against plaintiff or any of its members by the duly constituted authorities so empowered to do."

Preceding this final order and decree appears a detailed finding of facts by the trial court. No good purpose would be conserved by encumbering this opinion with such findings, it being conceded by plaintiff that they form no part of the record proper, and whether they do or do not support the judgment entered, cannot be considered here. Patterson v. Patterson, 200 Mo. 335, 98 S.W. 613; Maplegreen Realty Co. v. Mississippi Valley Trust Co., 237 Mo. 365, 141 S.W. 625; Presbyterian Orphanage v. Fitterling, 342 Mo. 299, 114...