State v. Longton
Decision Date | 04 June 1886 |
Citation | 35 Kan. 375,11 P. 163 |
Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. ISRAEL LONGTON |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Cloud District Court.
PROSECUTION for a violation of the prohibitory liquor law. The defendant Longton appeals. The opinion states the case.
Judgment affirmed.
L. J Crans, for appellant.
S. B Bradford, attorney general, for The State; Edwin A. Austin of counsel.
OPINION
This was a prosecution upon a criminal information filed in the district court of Cloud county, on October 22, 1885, charging the defendant, Israel Longton, with selling intoxicating liquors in violation of law, and without first taking out and having a permit authorizing him to make such sales. The information contained two counts, and was verified by the county attorney upon information and belief, and by the affidavit of another person, filed with the information, and this affidavit was sworn to positively, and was a sufficient verification of all the material allegations of the information, except that the defendant made the unlawful sales complained of "without first taking out and having a permit therefor." Upon this information, and on October 23, 1885, a warrant was issued for the arrest of the defendant. On October 24, 1885, he was arrested, and on the same day entered into a recognizance for his appearance at the next term of the district court, and was discharged from the arrest. On October 26, 1885, the warrant was returned to the district court. On February 17, 1886, the case was called for trial, and the defendant then filed a motion to set aside and quash the warrant, and that he be discharged without day. This motion was overruled. The defendant was then arraigned, but refused to plead, and the plea of "not guilty" was entered for him. He was then tried before the court and a jury, and was found guilty under the second count of the information and not guilty under the first count, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail of Cloud county for the term of forty days, and that he pay a fine of $ 125 and the costs of the prosecution. From this sentence he appeals.
The only grounds urged in this court for a reversal of the sentence and judgment of the court below, are that the information was not properly verified, and therefore that the warrant was improperly issued; that the defendant was wrongfully arrested thereunder, wrongfully required to enter into a recognizance for his appearance at court, and wrongfully tried upon the information. The case of The State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245, 4 P. 363, is relied on by the defendant as decisive of this case in his favor. He also cites the following cases: In re Lewis, 31 Kan. 71 1 P. 283; The State v. Blackman, 32 id. 615; The State v. Brooks, 33 id. 708, 712; The State v. Goodwin, 33 id. 538. None of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Addington
...preliminary hearing at a later date. (State v. Munson, 111 Kan. 318, 206 P. 749; State v. Miller, 87 Kan. 454, 124 P. 361; State v. Longton, 35 Kan. 375, 11 P. 163; 2 Hatcher's Kansas Digest (Rev.Ed.), Criminal Law § 87.) The only objection defendant registered to issuance of the original w......
-
State v. Gottlieb
...bail waives irregularity in the complaint. Re Cummings, 11 Okla. 286, 66 P. 332; State v. Barr, 54 Kan. 230, 38 P. 289; State v. Longton, 35 Kan. 375, 11 P. 163. attorney can file information when supported by affidavit. State v. Rozum, 8 N.D. 548, 80 N.W. 477; State v. Stevens, 19 N.D. 249......
-
State v. Jacques, 48898
...other purposes. (State v. Etzel, 2 Kan.App. 673, 43 P. 798 (1896); State v. Blackman, 32 Kan. 615, 5 P. 173 (1884); State v. Longton, 35 Kan. 375, 377, 11 P. 163 (1886).) The requirements for a search warrant based on hearsay obtained from a confidential informant were considered in Aguilar......
-
Hollibaugh and Bunten v. Hehn
...for every purpose except issuing a warrant for the arrest of the defendant. (State v. Blackman, 32 Kan. 615 (5 P. 173); State v. Longton, 35 Kan. 375 (11 P. 163); In re Cummings (Okla.), 11 Okla. 286, 66 P. State v. Tuchman, 47 Kan. 726, 28 P. 1004; State v. Barr, 54 Kan. 230 (38 P. 289.) N......