Koepke v. State

• Citation: 93 N.W. 1129,68 Neb. 152
• Parties: KOEPKE v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 18 March 1903
• Court: Supreme Court of Nebraska

68 Neb. 152

93 N.W. 1129

KOEPKE

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

March 18, 1903.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The running of a bowling alley in connection with a saloon or hotel is, in this state, a criminal offense.

Error to District Court, Colfax County; Hollenbeck, Judge.

William Koepke was convicted of maintaining a bowling alley, and brings error. Affirmed.George H. Thomas and Everitt & Wertz, for plaintiff in error.

Frank N. Prout, Atty. Gen., Norris Brown, Dep. Atty. Gen., and William B. Rose, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SULLIVAN, C. J.

The defendant, Koepke, a licensed vendor of intoxicating liquors, was found guilty of establishing and maintaining upon the premises where his saloon was located a ball or nine-pin alley. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled, and sentence imposed.

The facts charged in the information are admitted, but it is claimed that they do not constitute a crime. Section 221 of the Criminal Code--the section upon which the prosecution was grounded--is as follows: “If any keeper of a public house, or retailer of spirituous liquors, in this state, shall establish, keep, or permit to be kept upon his or their lots or premises, any ball or nine-pin alley, or shall in whole or in part be interested in any ball or nine-pin alley, upon the lot or premises of another, he or they shall pay a fine of not less than ten nor more than one hundred dollars; and this section shall be construed to extend to any alley denominated a nine-pin alley, whether such alley is used for playing therein a greater or less number than nine pins.”

It is argued by counsel for defendant that this section forbids a retailer of intoxicants or the keeper of a public house from keeping, or being interested in, a bowling alley anywhere in the state, and that it is, therefore, an unreasonable restriction upon individual freedom, and a violation of the right of every citizen to the equal protection of the laws. Under counsel's construction the statute as a whole would, perhaps, be indefensible; but we are not disposed to think it was designed to exclude innkeepers and saloon keepers from a business in which all other citizens are permitted to engage, but rather to prevent evils supposed to result from running a bowling alley in connection with a saloon or hotel. It is rather to be presumed that the Legislature failed to express itself clearly than that it intended to enact an unconstitutional law. Pleuler v....