State v. Oster

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas
Citation241 P. 112,119 Kan. 874
Docket Number26,584
PartiesTHE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. (CLYDE BROWN) and STELLA VAN OSTER, Appellant
Decision Date05 December 1925

241 P. 112

119 Kan. 874



No. 26,584

Supreme Court of Kansas

December 5, 1925

Decided July, 1925.

Appeal from Finney district court; CHARLES E. VANCE, judge.

Judgment affirmed.



1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS--Forfeiture of Transporting Automobile--Knowledge of Owner. An automobile which the owner places in the possession of another for general use and such other uses it in the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquors without the knowledge of the owner, is subject to forfeiture and condemnation under the statute relating to liquor nuisances, following State v. Peterson, 107 Kan. 641, 193 P. 342, and State v. Stephens, 109 Kan. 254, 198 P. 1087.

2. SAME -- Evidence of Intoxicating Character -- Competency. Officers of experience who found the liquor transported and determined by the sense of smell and from its appearance that it was strong intoxicating liquor are qualified to testify that it was intoxicating, and no error was committed in the admission of such testimony.

William H. Thompson and Wilbert F. Thompson, both of Tulsa, Okla., for the appellant.

C. B. Griffith, attorney-general, C. A. Burnett, assistant attorney-general, and Ray H. Calihan, county attorney, for the appellee.

Johnston, C. J. Hopkins, J., not sitting.



This appeal involves the validity of a judgment condemning and forfeiting an automobile found and declared to be a common nuisance. The grounds of forfeiture were that the automobile driven by one Clyde Brown had been used in transporting intoxicating liquors from one place to another within the state in violation of law. On one occasion when Brown was driving the car he was arrested on a charge that he was unlawfully in the possession of intoxicating liquors, and on another that he was unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquors in the car in question from one place to another within the state. At the time of the arrest the automobile was seized and the possession of the same was thereafter held by the sheriff. Stella Van Oster intervened and asked to be made a party to the proceeding against the automobile, and she alleged that she was the owner of the same, and that if Brown had been transporting [119 Kan. 875] liquor in the car it was done without her knowledge or sanction. She further alleged that Brown did not have liquor in the car when it was seized by the sheriff, that none was found therein by the sheriff, and that the seizure and forfeiture of the car by him and the subsequent condemnation was without authority of law and a violation of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Chapman v. Boynton, 1734.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of Kansas
    • 13 Mayo 1933
    ...citations for chapter 217, Laws of 1919: Norton v. Board of County Com'rs of Saline County, 118 Kan. 659, 236 P. 819; State v. Brown, 119 Kan. 874, 241 P. 112; State v. Boucher, 126 Kan. 796, 271 P. 278; State v. Eccleston, 133 Kan. 354, 299 P. 646; State v. Davidson, 136 Kan. 406, 15 P.(2d......
  • State v. 1920 Studebaker Touring Car
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • 14 Diciembre 1926
    ...The statute does not require it, but simply requires knowledge on the part of the person having charge of the car. State v. Brown, 119 Kan. 874, 241 P. 112; State v. One 1921 Cadillac Touring Car, 157 Minn. 138, 195 N.W. 778. The proceeding is against the offending car. Harwood v. State, 29......
  • People v. One 1998 GMC, 110236.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 30 Diciembre 2011
    ...the vehicle seized at the time of his arrest, and possession of the vehicle thereafter remained with the sheriff. State v. Brown, 119 Kan. 874, 241 P. 112 (1925). The State eventually brought a forfeiture action. Following a bench trial, the court ordered the vehicle forfeited. A jury later......
  • Van Oster v. State of Kansas, 303
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 22 Noviembre 1926 a judgment of forfeiture. This determination was affirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court of Kansas. State v. (Brown) Van Oster, 119 Kan. 874, 241 P. 112. After this decision, but prior to a petition for rehearing subsequently denied, Brown was acquitted by a jury of the offense charged i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT