State ex rel. Attorney General v. Karston
Decision Date | 07 May 1945 |
Docket Number | 4-7619 |
Citation | 187 S.W.2d 327,208 Ark. 703 |
Parties | State, ex rel. Attorney General, v. Karston |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Garland Chancery Court; Sam W. Garratt, Chancellor.
Reversed.
Guy E. Williams, Attorney General, Cleveland Holland and Elmo Taylor, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant.
Jay M. Rowland, for appellee.
OPINION
This is an appeal by the State from the refusal of the chancery court to entertain jurisdiction of an injunction proceeding instituted by the Attorney General. On June 28, 1944, the State of Arkansas, on the relation of Guy E. Williams, Attorney General, filed in the Garland chancery court a petition for injunction against appellee, Karston. The petition, omitting only caption and signature, reads as follows:
The defendant filed his general and special demurrer to the petition; and on November 29, 1944, the chancery court sustained the demurrer: "upon the ground that the chancery court has no jurisdiction of the matters involved, and that the Attorney General is without authority to present said action." Thereupon the plaintiff, refusing to plead further, the petition was dismissed; and this appeal follows:
I. The Effect of the Demurrer. Preliminary to a discussion of the two grounds assigned by the chancery court as reasons for dismissing the petition, it is fitting that we make a few observations:
The demurrer by the defendant admitted, for the purpose of a ruling thereon, all the allegations of the petition that were well pleaded. See cases collected in West's Arkansas Digest, "Pleadings," § 214. So, we have here a case where it is admitted by demurrer that Karston is operating a gambling house; that his place has been frequently raided by the State Police over a period of a year; that he continues to carry on his unlawful business "without restraint or molestation of the local law enforcing officers"; that there is a "failure and refusal by said local officers to prosecute"; that "the ordinary and usual criminal processes are inadequate"; and that, by reason of these matters, the State, on the relation of the Attorney General, claims it is entitled to the aid of a court of equity to enjoin the further operation of the gambling place. The case of Albright v. Karston, 206 Ark. 307, 176 S.W.2d 421, concerned the gambling house operated by Karston, and we said: "A gambling house was a public nuisance at common law, and the operation of a gambling house has by statute been made a felony in Arkansas."
That case is judicial recognition that appellee is maintaining a public nuisance at common law. Many cases declare a gambling house to be a public nuisance at common law. See Fox v. Harrison, 178 Ark. 1189, 13 S.W.2d 808, and Blumensteil v. State, 148 Ark. 421, 230 S.W. 262, where some of them are listed. The Attorney General alleges that the local law enforcement has broken down, and that nothing is being done to abate this public nuisance. These facts stand as admitted by the demurrer. With this background, we approach the case.
II. Authority of the Attorney General to Bring the Suit. The chancery court held that the Attorney General was without authority to bring this suit. The office of Attorney General of Arkansas is created by the Constitution. (See Art. VI, §§ 1, 3, 4, and 22.) We, therefore, look to the Constitution to see the authority of the Attorney General, and Art. VI, § 22, says: "The . . . Attorney General shall perform such duties as may be prescribed by law, . . ."
The Constitution thus gave the Legislature the right to state the powers and duties of the Attorney General; and § 5582 of Pope's Digest (§ 5 of Act 131 of 1911) says:
"Nothing in this act shall relieve the Attorney General of discharging any and all duties now required of him under the common law, or by any of the statutes of this state, . . ."
From this section it is clear that the Legislature has placed on the Attorney General certain statutory duties, and also "all duties now required of him under the common law." The common law was adopted in this State by § 1679 of Pope's Digest. For a full discussion of the common law, see Articles in 12 C. J. 175, 15 C. J. S. 610, and 11 Am. Juris. 153. The general rule in other states as to the powers and duties of the Attorney General is in accord with the views herein expressed. In 7 C. J. S. 1222 there is this statement:
In 5 Am. Juris. 234, in discussing the powers and duties of the Attorney General at common law, the rule is stated:
We emphasize the fact that at common law the Attorney General could "institute equitable proceedings for the abatement of public nuisances which affected or endangered the public safety or convenience and required immediate judicial interposition." In 5 Am. Juris. 244, in discussing the power of the Attorney General to bring an action to restrain a public nuisance, the rule is stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Digital Recognition Network, Inc. v. Hutchinson
...abatement of public nuisances, including “acts which are injurious to public health, safety, or morals,” State ex rel. Williams v. Karston, 208 Ark. 703, 187 S.W.2d 327, 329 (1945), and obstruction of traffic on the highways, see Owens v. Town of Atkins, 163 Ark. 82, 259 S.W. 396, 397 (1924......
-
Arkansas State Bd. of Architects v. Clark
...unlicensed individuals who persist in an activity legislatively found to be inimical to the common welfare.' In State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Karston, 208 Ark. 703, 187 S.W.2d 327, the court held that it was proper to enjoin Karston from operating a gambling house although the operation of a ......
-
State v. Karston
... Page 327 ... 187 S.W.2d 327 ... STATE ex rel". WILLIAMS, Atty. Gen., ... No. 4-7619 ... Supreme Court of Arkansas ... May 7, 1945 ... \xC2" ... Proceeding by the State, on the relation of Guy E. Williams, Attorney General, against A. J. Karston, for an injunction enjoining the defendant from conducting a ... ...
-
State ex rel. Derryberry v. Kerr-McGee Corp.
...p. 913 supra. See also State v. Young, 54 Mont. 401, 170 P. 947, 948 (1918); State v. Jones, 290 P.2d p. 284 supra; State v. Karston, 208 Ark. 703, 187 S.W.2d 327, 329 (1945); People v. New Penn Mines, Inc., 212 C.A.2d 667, 28 Cal.Rptr. 337 (1963) Cleaver v. Roberts, 203 A.2d 63, 67 (Del.19......