State v. Plomondon

Decision Date11 May 1907
Docket Number15,331
Citation90 P. 254,75 Kan. 853
PartiesTHE STATE OF KANSAS v. ED. PLOMONDON
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Decided January, 1907.

Appeal from Rooks district court; CHARLES W. SMITH, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

Fred S Jackson, attorney-general, and John S. Dawson, assistant attorney-general, for The State.

C. L Kagey, and R. M. Anderson, for appellant.

OPINION

Per Curiam:

This is an appeal from a conviction in the district court upon the charge of maintaining a nuisance in violation of the prohibitory liquor law. The proceedings were commenced before a justice of the peace, where defendant was convicted, and he appealed to the district court.

In sending up the transcript the justice failed to attach his certificate to the original complaint and warrant, and a motion was made by defendant to strike these papers from the files. The trial court denied the motion, and adjourned the cause from September 6 to September 10 to enable the justice properly to certify the papers. When this was done the trial proceeded. There was no error in these rulings. It has been held error to proceed to try a defendant in a criminal action where the original complaint and warrant are not properly certified by the justice. (The State v. Anderson, 34 Kan. 116, 8 P. 275; The State v. Durein, 65 Kan 700, 70 P. 601.) But here, before the trial commenced, the court postponed the proceedings in order that the justice before whom the first trial was had could attach his certificate and thus complete his transcript. This is the proper practice. (The State v. Geary, 58 Kan. 502, 49 P. 596.)

The original complaint was sworn to by three persons. It is urged that appellant could not be tried lawfully upon a warrant issued upon a complaint thus verified; that the fact that three persons subscribed to it warrants the inference that its verification required the combined knowledge of all of them, and that neither possessed sufficient knowledge or information to authorize him alone to verify it. There is no merit in the contention. The affidavit is the affidavit of each of the three persons who subscribed to it. It would have been sufficient with the signature and oath of either one, and was no stronger nor any less efficient because the others joined in making it.

We find no error in the admission of testimony or the remarks of the court in ruling thereon. It was proper to permit appellant to be asked on cross-examination...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Belisle
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1948
    ... ... question has been ruled upon by this court: State v ... Anderson, 17 Kan. 89; State v. Anderson, 34 ... Kan. 116, 8 P. 275; State v. English, 34 Kan. 629, 9 ... P. 761; State v. Allison, 44 Kan. 423, 24 P. 964; ... State v. Durein, 65 Kan. 700, 70 P. 601; State ... v. Plomondon, 75 Kan. 853, 90 P. 254; City of Salina ... v. Laughlin, 106 Kan. 275, 187 P. 676; State v ... Madden, 119 Kan. 263, 237 P. 663; and State v ... Hall, 138 Kan. 460, 26 P.2d 265. From the reported list ... of cases counsel for the defendant selects State v ... Anderson, 17 Kan. 89, supra, ... ...
  • State v. Brown, 45546
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • June 13, 1970
    ...would have been the duty of the court to postpone the proceedings and order the complaint and warrant properly certified. (State v. Plomondon, 75 Kan. 853, 90 P. 254.) * * *.' (p. 276, 187 P. p. In the Plomondon case the objection was made prior to trial, as in this case. The defendant-as h......
  • City of Salina v. Laughlin
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • February 7, 1920
    ...187 P. 676 106 Kan. 275 THE CITY OF SALINA, Appellee, v. A. W. LAUGHLIN, Appellant. THE STATE OF KANSAS, ex rel. EDD MATHEWS, as Mayor of the City of Salina, etc., Appellee, v. A. W. LAUGHLIN, Appellant Nos. 22,424, 22,450Supreme Court of ... postpone the proceedings and order the complaint and warrant ... properly certified. (The State v. Plomondon, 75 ... Kan. 853, 90 P. 254.) There was no merit in the objections to ... the transcript itself. It was not necessary that the ... transcript set ... ...

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