State v. Engle

• Decision Date: 27 November 1900
• Docket Number: 19,405
• Citation: 58 N.E. 698,156 Ind. 339
• Parties: The State v. Engle
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

58 N.E. 698

156 Ind. 339

The State v. Engle

No. 19,405

Supreme Court of Indiana

November 27, 1900

Rehearing Denied March 12, 1901.

From the Marion Criminal Court.

Reversed.

W. L Taylor, Attorney-General, E. B. Pugh and J. S. Weaver, for State.

D. L Brown, I. M. Holmes and D. L. Brown, Jr., for appellee.

OPINION

Baker, J.

Before a justice of the peace in Indianapolis appellee was tried and convicted on an affidavit charging him with removing his baggage from a rooming house in violation of the second section of the inn-keepers' act, hereinafter cited. On appeal to the Marion Criminal Court, appellee's motion to quash the affidavit was sustained "for the reason that the affidavit does not allege that the defendant removed the said goods with the intent to defraud the rooming house keeper". The affidavit does not contain such an allegation; and the necessity therefor is the only question presented and argued by the parties.

The first section of "an act for the protection of owners and keepers of hotels, inns, restaurants, boarding and eating houses, defining certain misdemeanors and their penalties, creating liens on certain property, and providing for the enforcement of the provisions hereof" (Acts 1897, p. 123, §§ 7254a-7254c Burns Supp. 1897, §§ 7560-7562 Horner 1897) provides that "any person or persons who shall obtain food, lodging, entertainment or other accommodations at any hotel, inn, restaurant, rooming, boarding or eating house, with intent to defraud the owner or keeper thereof, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned * * * or both". The second section reads: "Any person or persons, boarding or lodging, who have boarded or lodged, at any hotel, inn, boarding, eating, lodging house or restaurant, as provided in this act, shall not be permitted to remove any trunk, valise or other baggage therefrom, which he or they may have therein, until all claims for bills, lodging, entertainment or accommodation have been fully paid and satisfied in accordance with the regular advertised or special contract rates of said hotel, inn, boarding, eating, lodging house or restaurant, and any person or persons who shall remove or attempt to remove any such trunk, valise or baggage, or other article of value, without satisfying said claims or bills, shall be guilty of the same offenses named in section one (1) of this act, and shall be punished accordingly." The third section gives the proprietor a lien upon his guest's or boarder's baggage to the extent of his claim, and provides for the sale thereof.

Appellant claims that the guest's removal of baggage, without the proprietor's consent, and without payment of his bill, is a prohibited act, the voluntary doing of which makes the guest guilty under the second section, irrespective of the motive or intent that prompted the act. Appellee insists (1) that under the proper interpretation of the second section the removal of baggage is not a misdemeanor unless the guest intended thereby to defraud the proprietor, and (2) that appellant's interpretation brings the second section into conflict with the constitutional provision that "there shall be no imprisonment for debt except in case of fraud". If appellant's contention is well founded, the judgment should be reversed; otherwise, not.

Appellee admits that there are no words in the second section that condition the unlawfulness of the removal of baggage upon the guest's intent to defraud the proprietor unless they are the words "as provided in this act". These words refer to the class of proprietors to be protected, who are indicated in the title and each section of the act. If these words were taken to be a limitation to the guests in section one who obtain entertainment with intent to defraud, then the guests who obtained entertainment without intent to defraud, and who subsequently conceived and acted upon a design to defraud by removing their baggage and absconding, could not be punished under section two and the proprietor's lien provided for in section three could be destroyed with impunity. The lien attaches to the baggage of...