State v. Munson
| Decision Date | 06 May 1922 |
| Docket Number | 24,038 |
| Citation | 206 P. 749,111 Kan. 318 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. LUMAN E. MUNSON, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1922
Appeal from Thomas district court; CHARLES I. SPARKS, judge.
Judgment affirmed and cause remanded.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. IMPROVIDENT ISSUANCE OF WARRANT--Waived by Giving Bond. Improvident issuance of a warrant for arrest was waived by the voluntary giving of a bond for appearance.
2. LIQUOR LAW--Charge of Unlawful Possession--Insufficient Evidence. The defendant was given intoxicating liquor, to drink as much as he desired and return the remainder to the giver. Held, the liquor was not in possession of the recipient, within the meaning of the bone-dry law (Laws 1917 ch. 215, § 1).
E. H. Benson, of Colby, for the appellant.
Richard J. Hopkins, attorney-general, Guido E. Smith, county attorney, and E. F. Beckner, of Colby, for the appellee.
The defendant was convicted of the offense of having intoxicating liquor in his possession, and appeals.
The county attorney held an inquisition, at which testimony relating to commission of the offense was taken. The information was filed in the district court, was verified on information and belief only, and the testimony was not filed with the pleading. When arrested the defendant filed a motion to quash the warrant, and then gave bond for appearance. The defendant argues he should be discharged because the warrant was improvidently issued. In order to furnish proper foundation for the warrant, the information should have been verified positively, or the testimony taken at the inquisition should have been filed with the information. However, when the defendant gave bond he was no longer held by virtue of the warrant. The warrant had no further function, and the motion to quash was no longer of consequence.
The bond was given voluntarily, the information was good as an information, and it was optional with the county attorney whether he would file with the information the testimony taken at the inquisition.
The statute under which the defendant was convicted reads as follows:
"It shall be unlawful for any person to keep or have in his possession, for personal use or otherwise, any intoxicating liquors, or permit another to have or keep or use intoxicating liquors on any premises owned or controlled by him or to give away or furnish intoxicating liquors to another, except druggists or registered pharmacists as hereinafter provided." (Laws 1917, ch. 215, § 1.)
The facts, and the court's view of the law, on which the conviction rests, were stated in the following instruction to the jury:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chapman v. Boynton
...of sale competent to show possession, State v. Hanger, 108 Kan. 115, 193 P. 1052; personal use of liquor is not punishable, State v. Munson, 111 Kan. 318, 206 P. 749; see, also, State v. Harris, 116 Kan. 387, 226 P. 715; State v. Harwi, 117 Kan. 74, 230 P. 331; State v. Cochran, 122 Kan. 18......
-
Albrecht v. United States, 9
...legal rights. People v. Gardner, 71 Misc. Rep. 335, 130 N. Y. S. 202; State v. Simmons, 39 Kan. 262, 18 P. 177 (but compare State v. Munson, 111 Kan. 318, 206 P. 749). Compare Solomon v. People, 15 Ill. 291; State v. Hufford, 28 Iowa, 391. See Eddings v. Boner, 1 Ind. T. 173, 179-180, 38 S.......
-
State v. Marshall and Brown-Sidorowicz, P. A.
...in court, pleads, posts bond, and fails to make seasonable objection. State v. Addington, supra; State v. Barry, supra; State v. Munson, 111 Kan. 318, 206 P. 749 (1922); State v. Grady, 147 Kan. 268, 76 P.2d 799 (1938). Where a summons addressed to the sheriff of one county is served by the......
-
State v. Addington
...was effectively waived when defendant voluntarily gave bond for appearance at his 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.), Crimina......