State v. Rabinowitz

Decision Date11 November 1911
Docket Number17,732,17,735,17,733,17,731,17,734
Citation85 Kan. 841,118 P. 1040
PartiesTHE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. HARRY RABINOWITZ et al., Appellees. THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. HENRY CONRADT, Appellee. THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. THEODORE LINCK, Appellee. THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. NICK BUCATTI, Appellee. THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. JOHN BAUM et al., Appellees
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Decided July, 1911.

Appeals from Leavenworth district court.

STATEMENT.

IN the foregoing cases the attorney-general of the state and the county attorney of Leavenworth county filed petitions in behalf of the state, the averments in each being substantially the same. In the Rabinowitz case it was alleged:

"(1) That at the time of the institution of this action the above-named defendants were, and still are, residents and citizens of the city and county of Leavenworth, state of Kansas.

"(2) That for many months before the institution of this action the said defendants were, and still are, engaged in the unlawful sale, barter and delivery of intoxicating liquors within the said city and county of Leavenworth, state of Kansas, in the form and manner as hereinafter alleged and set forth.

"(3) That for many months before the institution of this action the said defendants were, and still are, maintaining and operating a so-called storeroom or warehouse, or a shift device or subterfuge, at a place called Stillings, in Platte county, state of Missouri, just across the Missouri river about one mile east of said city of Leavenworth, state of Kansas, at which place the said defendants, at all of the times herein mentioned, have been, and still are, temporarily unloading and storing intoxicating liquors for the express unlawful purpose, intent and design of thereafter selling bartering and delivering the same wholly within said city and county of Leavenworth, state of Kansas, as herein more fully alleged and set forth.

"(4) That for many months before the filing of the original petition in this action the said defendants have owned, maintained, used and employed, and are still maintaining, using and employing upon all the streets and alleys of the city of Leavenworth, Kan., certain wagons, vehicles and conveyances, with horses or mules hitched thereto and drivers thereon, for the express unlawful purpose of conveying or carrying said intoxicating liquors across said Missouri river from said town of Stillings, Mo., to and within said city and county of Leavenworth, state of Kansas, and there selling, bartering and delivering said intoxicating liquors to various persons and places, whose names and location are now unknown to said plaintiff, with the express purpose, intent and design, on the part of said defendants, of unlawfully aiding and abetting many of said persons in the violation of the prohibitory laws of said state of Kansas, as herein more fully alleged and set forth.

"(5) That for many months before the institution of this action the said defendants did, and do still, maintain and operate a local Leavenworth city telephone at their said so-called storeroom or warehouse, or said shift, device and subterfuge, at said town of Stillings, Mo., which said telephone, at all of the times herein mentioned, was, and still is, directly connected with residences and places of business within said city and county of Leavenworth, Kan., over which said telephone the said defendants, their agents and employees, have, at all of the times herein mentioned, and still are taking and receiving telephone orders for said intoxicating liquors at said so-called storeroom or warehouse, or said shift, device or subterfuge, at said town of Stillings, Mo., and thereafter selling, bartering and delivering said intoxicating liquors, so ordered, to said residences, persons and places of business wholly within said city and county of Leavenworth, Kan., in violation of the said prohibitory laws of said state of Kansas, as herein more fully alleged and set forth.

"(6) And plaintiff alleges that at all of the times herein mentioned it has been, and still is, the unlawful custom, habit or system of the said defendants, their agents and employees, to collect the sale price of said intoxicating liquors, so delivered upon said telephone orders, as aforesaid, wholly and entirely within said city and county of Leavenworth, state of Kansas, in violation of the prohibitory laws of said state of Kansas.

"(7) Plaintiff further alleges that at all of the times herein mentioned the said defendants have maintained, used and employed a local Leavenworth city telephone at their residence at Second and Ottawa streets and No. 714 Miami street, respectively, in said city of Leavenworth, Kan., over which said telephone the said defendants have, at all of the times herein mentioned, received, and do still receive, telephone orders for said intoxicating liquors from residences, persons and places of business wholly within said city and county of Leavenworth, Kan., and thereafter deliver the same to said residences, persons and places of business, by means of said wagons, vehicles and conveyances, from said so-called storeroom or warehouse, or said shift, device and subterfuge, at said town of Stillings, Mo., or from said wagons, wherever they may be on the streets and alleys of said city of Leavenworth, Kan., and thereafter collect the sale price of said intoxicating liquors wholly within said city and county of Leavenworth, Kan., all in violation of the prohibitory laws of said state of Kansas.

"(8) Plaintiff further alleges that at all of the times herein mentioned the said defendants have authorized, directed and allowed, and do still authorize, direct and allow, the drivers of said wagons, vehicles and conveyances, who are in their employ, and also other agents and employees, whose names are unknown to said plaintiff, to solicit, take and receive orders for said intoxicating liquors at residences, places of business, and of various persons, whose names are unknown to plaintiff, wholly within said city and county of Leavenworth, Kan., and on the streets and alleys of said city, and upon such orders the said defendants have, at all of the times herein mentioned, delivered, and are still delivering said intoxicating liquors to said residences, persons and places of business from said so-called storeroom or warehouse, or said shift, device or subterfuge, at said town of Stillings, Mo., and from said wagons on the streets and alleys of said city of Leavenworth, Kan., and thereafter collecting the sale price of said intoxicating liquors wholly within said city and county of Leavenworth, Kan., all in violation of the prohibitory laws of said state of Kansas.

"(9) And plaintiff further alleges that at all of the times herein mentioned the said defendants have kept, and do still keep, said wagons, vehicles, conveyances, horses, mules and drivers within said city and county of Leavenworth, Kan., especially at night, at places unknown to said plaintiff, and that frequently the said wagons, vehicles or conveyances are kept loaded over night with intoxicating liquors, which are delivered the next morning to various residences, persons and places of business within said city and county of Leavenworth, Kan., and the sale price thereafter collected wholly within said city and county of Leavenworth, state of Kansas, all in violation of the prohibitory laws of said state of Kansas.

"(10) And plaintiff further alleges that a very large part or proportion of the said places and persons to whom or which said intoxicating liquors are sold, bartered and delivered, in the manner herein alleged, are thereafter selling, bartering and delivering said intoxicating liquors in violation of the prohibitory laws of the state of Kansas; that said defendants well know this to be a fact, that said defendants, at all of the times herein mentioned, have been, and still are, selling, bartering and delivering said intoxicating liquors to them, as herein alleged and set forth, for the express unlawful purpose and with the express unlawful intent and design of aiding and abetting them in violating said prohibitory laws of said state of Kansas.

"(11) And plaintiff further alleges that the said defendants have adopted, employed and used, and are now adopting, employing and using the said so-called storeroom or warehouse, at said town of Stillings, Mo., and said wagons, vehicles, conveyances, horses, mules, drivers, telephones, and all other property and means employed, as herein alleged, purely and simply as devices, shifts and subterfuges to attempt to avoid and violate the said prohibitory laws of said state of Kansas.

"(12) And plaintiff further alleges that said defendants have, at all of the times herein mentioned, pretended, and do still pretend, to be engaged in interstate commerce in selling, bartering and delivering said intoxicating liquors, as herein alleged, but plaintiff alleges that they have been and are conducting said unlawful business, as herein alleged, wholly within said state of Kansas, and are not bona fide engaged in any interstate commerce business.

"(13) Plaintiff further alleges that at all the times herein mentioned the said defendants have received, and do still receive, said intoxicating liquors at their said so-called storeroom or warehouse, or said shift, device or subterfuge at said town of Stillings, Mo., in original packages, and that said intoxicating liquors are there taken out of said original packages by the said defendants and thereafter sold, bartered and delivered to said residences, persons and places of business within said city and county of Leavenworth, Kansas, in other than their original packages, suitable for the use and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Bolin v. Cessna Aircraft Co., Civ. A. No. 87-1338-T.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • March 6, 1991
    ...action requires only that the nuisance be in a place where the public has a right to go and in fact does go. State v. Rabinowitz, 85 Kan. 841, 847, 118 P. 1040 (1911); City of Burlington v. Stockwell, 5 Kan.App. 569, 47 P. 988 (1897). Although an action for public nuisance may generally be ......
  • Chapman v. Boynton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • May 13, 1933
    ...State v. Ross, 86 Kan. 799, 121 P. 908; injunction properly allowed restraining sale in streets and alleys, State v. Rabinowitz, 85 Kan. 841, 118 P. 1040, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 187; injunction may restrain defendants from maintaining nuisance anywhere in county, State v. Dykes, 83 Kan. 250, 1......
  • State ex rel. Igoe v. Joynt
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 27, 1937
    ... ... our criminal laws it is an offense to public order and ... welfare as well. "At the common law, acts done in ... violation of the law, or which are against good morals or ... public decency, and which result in injury to the public, ... constitute a public nuisance." [State v ... Rabinowitz, 85 Kan. 841, ... [110 S.W.2d 741] ... 118 P. 1040, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 187.] On the subject of ... public nuisances see State ex rel. Crow v. Canty, ... 207 Mo. 439, 105 S.W. 1078; Ex parte Laymaster v ... [341 Mo. 796] Goodin, 260 Mo. 613, 168 S.W. 754; ... Eichenlaub v. City of St ... ...
  • Larson v. State ex rel. Patterson
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • July 26, 1957
    ...then nuisances.' This the defendant, by his own testimony, establishes that he has done and is doing. In State v. Rabinowitz, 85 Kan. 841, 847, 118 P. 1040, 1042, 39 L.R.A., N.S., 187, it was said: 'At the common law acts done in violation of the law, or which are against good morals or pub......
  • 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