State v. Druitt

• Decision Date: 09 November 1889
• Citation: 22 P. 697,42 Kan. 469
• Parties: THE STATE OF KANSAS v. GEORGE A. DRUITT
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

22 P. 697

42 Kan. 469

THE STATE OF KANSAS v. GEORGE A. DRUITT

Supreme Court of Kansas

November 9, 1889

Appeal from Cowley District Court.

PROSECUTION for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law. At the September term, 1888, the defendant George A. Druitt was tried and found guilty on the first and fourth counts of the information. New trial denied, and sentence on each count to pay a fine of $ 500, to be imprisoned in the county jail ninety days, and to pay the costs of the prosecution. Defendant appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Henry T. Sumner, for appellant.

L. B Kellogg, attorney general, and C. L. Swarts, county attorney for The State.

HOLT C. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

HOLT, C.:

This action was tried at the September term, 1888, of the Cowley district court, and the defendant convicted on two counts in the information charging him with violating the prohibitory liquor law; he appeals to this court. The information was verified by the county attorney on information and belief, and affidavits of John W. Kreamer and L. E. Woodin jr. were filed with it. The date of filing was March 12, 1888; the information was sworn to by the county attorney on the 10th and the said affidavits on the 12th of March, 1888. There was no motion to quash the information, or in arrest of judgment, but the defendant made a motion for a new trial as follows:

"1. The court admitted illegal testimony on the trial of this case.

"2. The court misdirected the jury in a material part of law on the trial of this cause, by stating to the jury and the attorney for defendant on the argument of said cause that the sworn statements of the witnesses John W. Kreamer and L. E. Woodin jr., taken by the county attorney under the provisions of § 8, chapter 149, Laws of 1885, commonly called the prohibitory liquor law, and filed with the information in this case, which said information was verified on information and belief only, the names of said witnesses being also indorsed on said information. The court refused to allow the defendant's attorney to compare the said statements so filed with the information, and refused to instruct the jury that the defendant could not be convicted of any violation of said law not referred to and set forth in said statements -- said statements being all the statements filed by the county attorney with said information. The court by so refusing deprived the defendant of his rights under the law. The court erred in refusing to allow defendant to read said statements to the jury for the purpose of limiting the conviction, if any should be, to the violations named in said statements.

"3. The verdict is contrary to law, and is contrary to the evidence."

The defendant complains that the verification of the information is insufficient. It is questionable whether this objection is fairly raised in the record. We think, however, that the verification was sufficient, certainly under the objections made to it....