State v. Craddock
| Decision Date | 11 October 1890 |
| Citation | 44 Kan. 489,24 P. 949 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. FRANCIS CRADDOCK |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Montgomery District Court.
Judgment affirmed.
S. M Porter, for appellant.
L. B Kellogg, attorney general, for The State.
OPINION
On the 18th day of July, 1889, D. Wesner filed a complaint before H. D. Grant, a justice of the peace of Montgomery county, Kansas, charging Francis Craddock with having on the 22d of June, 1889, at the county of Montgomery and state of Kansas, "unlawfully and willfully disturbed the peace" of him the said D. Wesner, contrary to the statute, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Kansas. A warrant issued, describing the offense in the language of the statute, upon which Craddock was arrested and brought before said justice, where after several continuances he was tried by a jury of four and convicted, and was thereupon sentenced to pay a fine of one dollar and costs. Craddock appealed to the district court, where he filed a plea in abatement, which was overruled. He then applied for a continuance, which was also overruled, and the case brought to trial before the court and a jury of twelve, which trial resulted in a conviction of the defendant. Motion for a new trial was presented and overruled, and defendant sentenced to pay a fine of ten dollars and costs; from which judgment the defendant appeals to this court, and alleges that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed, for the following reason: That the complaint and warrant are void, for the reason that no public offense is charged in either. The section of the statute under which the prosecution is brought, reads as follows:
"Every person who shall willfully disturb the peace and quiet of any person, family or neighborhood, shall upon conviction thereof be fined in a sum not exceeding one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding three months."
It will be seen that the complaint follows the language of the statute in charging the offense, except that the complaint alleges that the appellant unlawfully as well as willfully disturbed the peace of the complainant. The charge against the appellant is a petty misdemeanor. We think the complaint and warrant in this case must be held to be sufficient. (Gen. Stat. of 1889, P 5173; The State v. McGaffin, 36 Kan. 315.)
The appellant complains that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hazen
...... decision: State v. White, 14 Kan. 538, assault with. intent to kill; State v. Foster, 30 Kan. 365, 2 P. 628, the passing, uttering and publishing of a forged draft;. State v. McGaffin, 36 Kan. 315, [160 Kan. 738] 13 P. 560, murder; State v. Craddock, 44 Kan. 489, 24 P. 949 and State v. Brower, 75 Kan. 823, 88 P. 884,. disturbing the peace; State v. Seely, 65 Kan. 185,. 69 P. 163, robbery; State v. Tinkler, 72 Kan. 262,. 264, 83 P. 830, statutory rape; State v. Custer, 85. Kan. 445, 116 P. 507 and State v. Curtis, 108 Kan. 537, 196 P. ......
-
State v. Stroble, 37818
...to be a violation of the law by such a charge, but this is not such a case. State v. McGaffin, 36 Kan. 315, 13 P. 560; State v. Craddock, 44 Kan. 489, 24 P. 949; State v. Brower, 75 Kan. 823, 88 P. Error is next assigned in the court's order overruling defendant's demurrer to the state's ev......
-
State v. Morrison
...... rules to determine the sufficiency of an information or. indictment. It is not necessary in an information to use the. exact words of the statute in charging an offense. It is. sufficient if words are used conveying the same. meaning." See, also, the following cases: State v. Craddock, 44 Kan. 489, 24 P. 949; State v. Foster, 30 Kan. 365, 2 P. 628; State v. Hart,. 33 Kan. 218, 6 P. 288; Madden v. State, 1 Kan. 340,. 348, 349; State v. Barnett, 3 Kan. 250. In the case. of State v. Schweiter, 27 Kan. 499, 506, it was. decided as follows: "Where the statute makes either of. ......
-
City of Seattle v. Jordan
...defense. In some jurisdictions this has been held requisite, but in this state, especially since the decision, in 1890, of State v. Craddock, 44 Kan. 489, 24 P. 949, practice of charging misdemeanors in the language of the statute which defines the offense has been recognized.' It is also c......