State v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 17 May 1909 |
| Citation | 119 S.W. 494,137 Mo.App. 105 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. CLAYTON H. CAMPBELL, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Dallas Circuit Court.--Hon. Argus Cox, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
J. W Farris, for appellant, filed argument.
Herbert S. Hadley, Attorney-General, and Frank Blake, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.
(1) The information is sufficient. State v. Searcy, 39 Mo.App. 393; State v. Hutton, 39 Mo.App. 410; State v. Prather, 41 Mo.App. 451; State v Handler, 178 Mo. 38; R. S. 1899, sec. 3032. (2) The constitutionality of the Local Option Law has been many times sustained by this court. State v. Handler, 178 Mo 38; State v. Dugan, 110 Mo. 138; State v. Watts, 111 Mo. 553; State v. Searcy, 111 Mo. 236. (3) A certified copy of the result of a local option election as spread upon the records of the county court, and proof of the subsequent publication of the result in compliance with the statute, sufficiently shows that the local option law is in force in the county. State v. Searcy, 46 Mo.App. 421; State v. Searcy, 111 Mo. 236. (4) The notice of election must be given for twenty-eight days under the local option law, which notice, if in a weekly paper, requires five insertions, and the election can take place on any of the ten days next following the fifth insertion. State v. Dobbins, 116 Mo.App. 29. (5) The prescribed publication of the result of a local option election is not required to be proved in any particular form or manner. It may be established by the oral testimony of the publisher or of any competent witness. State v. Baker, 36 Mo.App. 58.
The defendant was indicted for a violation of the Local Option Law, tried and convicted. From the judgment of conviction, he appealed.
It is contended that notice of the election for the adoption of the law was not published, as provided by section 3029, Revised Statutes 1899. This section reads as follows: "Notice of such election shall be given by publication in some newspaper published in the county, and such notice shall be published in such newspaper for four consecutive weeks, and the last insertion shall be within ten days next before such election." The order of the county court directed the publication in the language of the section. The first insertion in the newspaper was February 8th and the fourth insertion was on March 1st, and the election was held on March 13th, so that the fourth insertion was more than ten days next before the day of the election. A fifth insertion was made of the notice and within ten days of the election. A case on a similar state of facts was before this court, wherein it was held that the statute had been complied with as to such publication. We feel that we could not add anything to the force of the opinion delivered by ELLISON, Judge, and therefore deem it unnecessary to discuss it further. [State v. Dobbins, 116 Mo.App. 29, 92 S.W. 136.]
It is urged that the order of the county court declaring the Local Option Law adopted does not refer to the fact that any proof of publication was filed in the court, or any evidence produced showing that notice of election had been published therefore, the court had no jurisdiction to declare the law adopted. The record shows that the affidavit of the publisher had been filed with the court in due time, but had been lost, and after defendant had been indicted the publisher filed another for the purpose of supplying the place of the one lost. This was sufficient. And it has recently been held that "In a prosecution for the sale of liquor in violation of the Local Option Law, the State does not have to show as a part of its case that notice of the election was given, though without such notice the election would be void." [State v. Foreman, 121 Mo.App. 502, 97 S.W. 269; State v. Bush,...
To continue reading
Request your trial