State v. Brady, 55638
| Decision Date | 08 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 55638,No. 2,55638,2 |
| Citation | 472 S.W.2d 356 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Appellant, v. Ray BRADY et al., Appellants, and Richard J. Lynn, Respondent |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Wieler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for appellant.
No appearance for defendants.
Walter R. Simpson, Kansas City, for respondent.
STOCKARD, Commissioner.
On November 21, 1969, agents of the Missouri Department of Liquor Control seized various containers of intoxicating liquor which were on board the vessel River Queen on the basis that the liquor was being sold illegally. Five days later, at a time when it is admitted no violation of the liquor laws was taking place on the River Queen, agents of the Department of Liquor Control seized the vessel on the basis of the previous violation.
Pursuant to § 311.840 () the State filed its petition in the Circuit Court of Buchanan County and requested that the seized liquor and the vessel be declared contraband and sold. The liquor was declared to be contraband and was sold, but the court ordered the vessel to be returned to its owners on the basis that there was no violation of the liquor laws at the time of the seizure. We affirm.
Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot on the basis that subsequent to the notice of appeal the State voluntarily relinquished possession of the River Queen. If so, this is not shown by the transcript, but appears in an affidavit filed with the motion to dismiss. The relinquishing of the River Queen was made pursuant to a stipulation, the effect of which is not certain. In these circumstances, we overrule the motion to dismiss and rule the case as its merits.
Two sections of the liquor control law must be read together.
Section 311.830. Any intoxicating liquor being transported into, within, or through the state of Missouri in knowing and willful violation of the provisions of sections 311.410 to 311.460, 311.580 and 311.820 to 311.850, and the conveyance in which it is being transported shall be deemed contraband and shall be forfeited to the state of Missouri, and the supervisor of liquor control, or any of his agents and inspectors, and any peace officer of the state of Missouri shall seize any such liquor and the conveyance in which it is being transported as contraband.'
Section 311.840. (4) * * * and if it shall be found by the court that said property was, at the time it was seized, being illegally used and was contraband, as declared by any section of the liquor control law of the state of Missouri, the said property shall be declared to be forfeited to the state of Missouri, * * *.
In determining the meaning and application of the above statutes, the duty of the court is to determine the legislative intent, taking the words used in their 'plain or ordinary and usual sense.' § 1.090; Rosedale-Skinker Imp. Assn. v. Board of Adjustment, Mo., 425 S.W.2d 929. However, the provisions of § 311.830, being penal in nature, should be strictly construed and given no broader application than is warranted by their plain and unambiguous terms. City of Charleston v. McCutcheon, 360 Mo. 157, 227 S.W.2d 736, 738.
Assuming that the liquor seized was being 'transported' on the River Queen within the meaning of the liquor laws, § 311.830...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Patterson
...and application of statutes, are obliged to take words in 'their plain or ordinary and usual sense.' § 1.090, V.A.M.S.; State v. Brady, 472 S.W.2d 356, 358(1) (Mo.1971). Also, significance and effect should be afforded every word, phrase and sentence of a law. State ex rel. Wright v. Carter......
-
Consolidated School Dist. No. 1 of Jackson County v. Bond
...that the legislature in adopting § 29.230, subd. 2 used the term 'political subdivision' in that settled sense. § 1.090; State v. Brady, 472 S.W.2d 356, 358 (Mo.1971). The trial court, however, reached the conclusion that this statutory section was not intended to cover school districts, re......
-
State ex rel. Dravo Corp. v. Spradling
...State ex rel. Cooper v. Cloyd, 461 S.W.2d 833 (Mo. banc 1971); Missouri Pacific RR Co. v. Kuehle, 482 S.W.2d 505 (Mo.1972); State v. Brady, 472 S.W.2d 356 (Mo.1971); State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Wiggins, 454 S.W.2d 899 (Mo. banc 1970); State ex rel. MFA Mutual Ins. Co. v. Roone......
-
Derboven v. Stockton
...plainly appears. State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Wiggins, 454 S.W.2d 899 (Mo.Sup. En Banc 1970), l.c. 902. State of Missouri v. Brady, 472 S.W.2d 356 (Mo.Sup.1971), l.c. 358. When the overall purpose of a statute is plain and it is remedial, then it will be construed broadly and l......