State v. Cropper

• Decision Date: 01 June 1896
• Docket Number: 318
• Citation: 4 Kan.App. 245,45 P. 131
• Parties: THE STATE OF KANSAS v. E. B. CROPPER
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

45 P. 131

4 Kan.App. 245

THE STATE OF KANSAS v. E. B. CROPPER

No. 318

Court of Appeals of Kansas, Southern Department, Eastern Division

June 1, 1896

Opinion Filed June 2, 1896.

MEMORANDUM. -- Appeal from Crawford district court; J. S WEST, judge. Prosecution for violation of the prohibitory liquor law. Defendant, E. B. Cropper, was convicted. He appeals. Affirmed. The opinion herein, filed June 2, 1896 states the material facts.

Judgment affirmed.

B. S. Gaitskill, C. W. Butterworth, and O. T. Boaz, for appellant.

F. B. Dawes, attorney general, and W. H. Morris, county attorney, for The State.

DENNISON J. All the Judges concurring.

OPINION

DENNISON, J.:

This is an action brought in the district court of Crawford county, Kansas, against appellant, Cropper, for selling intoxicating liquors in violation of law, and for keeping a place where such liquors are unlawfully kept for sale, and where persons are permitted to assemble for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquors as a beverage. The information contained two counts--the first for selling, and the second for keeping the place. The information was verified by the county attorney upon information and belief, and filed with the information was the affidavit of one Phillips, verified before the county attorney. Cropper was acquitted upon the first count, and found guilty upon the second count. He alleges error in said conviction, and brings the case here for review.

The first error complained of is that the court overruled a motion to quash the second count of the information. A thorough examination of the record fails to disclose any motion to quash the information or any ruling thereon, and the motion for a new trial does not allege the overruling of such motion as one of the causes for which a new trial should be granted. Therefore we cannot say that the court erred in overruling a motion to quash the information. We may say however, that an information verified by the county attorney upon information and belief is a sufficient verification for every purpose, except merely for the purpose of issuing a warrant for the arrest of the defendant. (The State v. Blackman, 32 Kan. 615, 5 P. 173.) No attack was made upon the warrant, either by motion to quash or to discharge from arrest. The defendant below objected to the introduction of any testimony under the second count of the information, for the reason that it does not state a public offense, for the further...