State v. Nichols
| Decision Date | 29 January 1915 |
| Docket Number | 12098. |
| Citation | 83 Wash. 676,145 P. 986 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. DOW, Pros. Atty., v. NICHOLS et al. |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; M. L. Clifford Judge.
Action by the State, on relation of Lorenzo Dow, Prosecuting Attorney, against W. R. Nichols and others. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
C. M Riddell, A. R. Titlow, and A. O. Burmeister, all of Tacoma for appellants.
Lorenzo Dow and A. B. Comfort, both of Tacoma, for respondent.
The purpose of this action was to abate a nuisance and enjoin the continuance thereof. In the complaint it is alleged that on and from some time prior to October 18, 1913, a certain building or hotel known as the Wilber, in the city of Tacoma 'was used for the purpose of lewdness, assignation, and prostitution, and said place was at said time, and is now, a nuisance under the statutes of the state of Washington.' The owners of the hotel as well as the lessees were made parties defendant. They answered separately denying the existence of the nuisance. After the issues had been thus framed the defendants demanded a jury trial. This by the trial court was refused. The cause was tried to the court and a finding made:
'That on and prior to the 18th day of October, 1913, said building together with the fixtures, furniture, and movable property therein, was used for the purpose of lewdness, assignation, and prostitution.'
A judgment was entered abating the nuisance and closing the property for a period of six months. From this judgment the defendants appeal.
In the briefs two questions are argued: First, whether the finding that the building was used for the purpose of lewdness, assignation, and prostitution is sustained by the evidence; and, second, whether the trial court erred in denying a jury trial.
I. The action was brought under chapter 127, p. 391, Laws of 1913, generally known as the red light law. Section 1 of this act is dual in its provisions. It is there provided that whoever shall erect, establish, maintain, continue, use, own, or lease any building or place used for the purpose of lewdness, assignation, or prostitution is guilty of a nuisance; and also that the building or place or the ground itself in or upon which lewdness, assignation, or prostitution is conducted, permitted, or carried on, continues or exists, and the furniture, fixtures, musical instruments, and contents, are declared a nuisance. Section 2 of the act provides that the prosecuting attorney, or any citizen of the county may maintain an action in equity in the name of the state. The present action is one in equity, and is brought under the second provision of section 1 of the act, which makes the place or building a nuisance, and not under the first provision, which makes the person subject to be prosecuted by indictment or information.
The appellants claim that the evidence does not show that lewdness or prostitution was conducted or carried on in the building mentioned. This presents a question of fact. The statement of facts covers approximately 225 pages. The appellants' abstract of the evidence covers less than 2 pages of typewritten matter. It does not set forth the evidence of the various witnesses in narrative form, nor contain references to the statement of facts, as required by the statute and the court rules. The abstract covers the evidence in general terms, and is denominated by the abstracter as a 'synopsis' of the evidence. No motion was interposed to strike this abstract. The respondent filed a supplemental abstract setting forth the testimony of certain of its witnesses in narrative form. Considering the testimony as it is found in these two abstracts, there is no question but what the finding of the trial court is sustained by the evidence. From the evidence abstracted it plainly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Terry
... ... they are directed against specific property, are proceedings ... in rem. We have already so construed that law. State ex ... rel. Kern v. Emerson, 90 Wash. 565, 571 ,574, 155 P ... 579, L. R. A. 1916F, 325; State ex rel. Dow v ... Nichols, 83 Wash. 676, 677, 145 P. 986; State ex rel ... Kern v. Jerome, supra ... [99 ... Wash. 6] We are clear that appellant's first two ... contentions are unsound. The decree, being in rem, reaches ... further than the parties named ... [168 P. 515] ... ...
-
City of Bellingham v. Chin
...617 P.2d 704). 13. Tradewell Stores, Inc. v. T.B. & M., Inc., 7 Wash.App. 424, 500 P.2d 1290 (1972). 14. See State ex rel. Dow v. Nichols, 83 Wash. 676, 678-80, 145 P. 986 (1915). 15. See Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wash.2d 30, 640 P.2d 716 16. Cohen v. Everett City Council, 85 Wash.2......
-
State v. Emerson
... ... it to another, is liable in person and in property for the ... tax or penalty, whichever it may be called, which the statute ... says shall be entered as a part of the decree of abatement ... The ... relator relies upon State ex rel. Dow v. Nichols, 83 ... Wash. 676, 145 P. 986; State ex rel. Kern v. Jerome, ... 80 [90 Wash. 567] Wash. 261, 141 P. 753; and Tenement ... House Department v. McDevitt, 215 N.Y. 160, 109 N.E. 88 ... We said in the Dow Case: ... 'It is said, however, that the owners of the property ... ...
-
State ex rel. Carroll v. Gatter
...the statute has been designated and referred to as the 'Red Light Law.' State ex rel. Kern v. Jerome, supra; State ex rel. Dow v. Nichols, 1915, 83 Wash. 676, 145 P. 986; State ex rel. Kern v. Emerson, 1916, 90 Wash. 565, 155 P. 579, L.R.A.1916F, 325; State ex rel. Lundin v. Campbell, 1917,......