In re The Petition of O. P. Massey for A Writ of Habeas Corpus
| Decision Date | 09 November 1895 |
| Docket Number | 10406 |
| Citation | 42 P. 365,56 Kan. 120 |
| Parties | In the matter of the Petition of O. P. MASSEY for a writ of Habeas Corpus |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1895.
APPLICATION by O. P. Massey for a discharge on habeas corpus. The opinion, filed November 9, 1895, states the material facts.
Prayer for discharge denied.
O. G Eckstein, and Kos. Harris, for petitioner.
F. B Dawes, attorney general, A. A. Godard, and W. P. Campbell for respondent.
OPINION
The petition in this case shows that the petitioner is marshal of the city of Wichita; that a complaint was duly filed in the police court charging Henry Schnitzler, William Schnitzler James Burns and Henry Billman with keeping a nuisance in violation of the prohibitory liquor law. A warrant was thereupon duly issued, and under it the petitioner arrested the parties, and seized certain personal property, consisting of beer, whisky, bottles, tables, and other articles found in the place described in the warrant as kept by the defendants. Afterward the Citizens' Social Club of Wichita, a corporation, commenced a civil action before G. W. C. Jones, Esq., a justice of the peace of Wichita, to recover the property seized, which it claimed to own. A summons in replevin was duly issued by said justice, and placed in the hands of a constable. The petitioner refused to deliver the property to the constable. He was thereupon cited before said justice to answer as for a contempt in failing to deliver the property to the constable. He appeared and made answer justifying his refusal, on the ground that he had seized the property in the manner above stated, and held it subject to the order of the police court, and that the criminal prosecution against the parties named in the warrant was still pending. The justice thereupon ordered that the petitioner deliver the property to the constable, or stand committed until he comply with the order. The petitioner refused to deliver the property, and was thereupon committed to jail by the constable. He now asks this court to discharge him under a writ of habeas corpus. This can only be done if the justice of the peace was without power to make the order. Section 69 of the act regulating procedure before justices of the peace expressly gives a justice power to commit any person having the possession of property sought to be recovered in an action of replevin who refuses to deliver it to the officer serving the process. The contention of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Roat
...F.2d 298, 300 (10th Cir. 1963). This court has expressly recognized that a party has "the right to a day in court." See In re Massey , 56 Kan. 120, 122, 42 P. 365 (1895). This right is considered fundamental and expansive in its reach:"The constitutional guarantee of providing for open cour......
-
Davis-McGee Mule Co. v. Marett
...open. Moore v. Ewbanks, 66 S.C. 374, 44 S.E. 971, 15 R. C. L. 417, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1121 (note); 17 Ann. Cas. 302 (note); In re Massey, 56 Kan. 120, 42 P. 365. As the second ground: The amendment to the act of 1917, cited by appellant, by the act of 1919, set out in section 885, Cr. Law ......
-
Greentree v. Wallace
...has since been supplied in the act known as the Hurrel law, enacted in 1901. Moreover, the language copied from the syllabus in the Massey case, supra, misleading. The question in that case was whether the officer who seized the liquors in the criminal action and had them in his possession ......
-
King v. McCrory
... ... 434; Duboff v. Haslan, 182 N.Y.S. 896; In re ... Massey, 56 Kan. 120, 42 P. 365 ... We ... respectfully ... ...