Kansas City v. Neal

• Decision Date: 24 May 1894
• Citation: 26 S.W. 695,122 Mo. 232
• Parties: Kansas City v. Neal et al., Plaintiffs in Error
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

26 S.W. 695

122 Mo. 232

Kansas City v. Neal et al., Plaintiffs in Error

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

May 24, 1894

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. -- Hon. H. P. White, Judge.

Transferred to kansas city court of appeals.

Frank Titus for plaintiffs in error.

(1) The information upon which the final judgment complained of is based is not sufficient to uphold such judgment. Jefferson City v. Courtmire, 9 Mo. 692; Mayor etc., v. Hussey, 21 Ga. 80; Town, etc., v Hammond, 76 N.C. 33; City v. Kellar, 18 Iowa 65; State v. Langston, 88 N.C. 692. (2) The special finding of the facts in this case by the court below, clearly shows that no offense or forbidden act of any kind was proved to have been committed by defendant Neal in Kansas City. (3) The judgment of the court below against plaintiff in error Stevens, wherein it is ordered, after finding the sole defendant Neal guilty, that Kansas City have and recover from said defendant "as well as E. A. Stevens, surety herein, the sum of $ 500" is and should be declared invalid. (4) The judgment of the police judge was void and the so-called recognizance in question taken before him was also void. The constitution declares that, except as in the constitution otherwise provided, the judical power shall be vested in the supreme court, courts of appeal, circuit courts, criminal courts, probate courts, county courts and muncipal corporation courts. Article 6, sec. 1. The legislative power of the state, composed as provided for in the constitution is the only competent authority to create courts with the jurisdiction claimed by the police court of Kansas City. Ruggells v. Collier, 43 Mo. 353; Davis v. Los Angeles, 86 Cal. 37. (5) Plaintiffs in error are entitled to have this entire case reviewed by reason of the constitutional questions involved. State v. Kingsley, 18 S.W. 994; State ex rel. v. Francis, 95 Mo. 44; Nolan v. Jones, 108 Mo. 431.

J. W. Fraher, C. E. Pratt and F. F. Rozzelle for defendant in error.

OPINION

Burgess J.

Defendant Neal was convicted in the criminal court of Jackson county, on appeal from the police court, on complaint filed, for the violation of an ordinance of the city. The fine imposed for which judgment was rendered against her and her codefendant, who was surety on her appeal bond, was $ 500. While the record shows that a motion for a new trial was filed by Neal, the motion has not been copied into the record. No motion was filed by her in arrest in the court below, nor did she preserve the proceedings at the trial by bill of exceptions.

On November 24, 1890, Stephens filed his motion to set aside the judgment against him, and also to quash the execution which had been issued thereon, for numerous causes assigned therein, which motions were overruled, and he saved his exceptions, as appears from the bill filed. The defendants, on the seventh day of April, 1892, sued out their writ of error and brought the case to this court.

The first question to be determined by this court is as to whether or not it has jurisdiction of the case. It is quite plain that it has not, as the amount involved is less than $ 2,500 (section 12, article 6, constitution and amendment of 1884, sections 4 and 5) unless the prosecution is for a felony, or Kansas City is a political subdivision of the state within the meaning of section 12, article 6, state constitution, as contended by counsel for defendants.

In Ex Parte Hollwedell, 74 Mo. 395, it is held that the violation of a city ordinance is not a criminal offence within the meaning of the constitution, and that a proceeding by a city to recover a fine for the violation of such ordinance need not be by indictment or information in the name of the state.

The proceeding by the city against the defendant Neal for a violation of its ordinances was but a civil suit in form and quasi criminal in its...