State v. Richardson
| Decision Date | 06 July 1929 |
| Docket Number | 28,905 |
| Citation | 278 P. 752,128 Kan. 627 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. CHARLES RICHARDSON et al.; EMMA RICHARDSON et al., Appellants |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1929.
Appeal from Montgomery district court; JOSEPH W. HOLDREN, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS--Injunction--Authority of Court to Padlock Premises. Where an injunction had been properly issued, restraining owners, tenants and all others concerned from violating or permitting the violation of the intoxicating liquor law on certain premises, and where it was repeatedly shown to the court that its injunction had been persistently violated, it was within the power of the court being fully advised of its necessity, and in the exercise of its judicial discretion, to order the sheriff "to take possession of the premises, and eject the defendants and all other persons therefrom, and padlock the buildings until such time as the court shall be satisfied that the law will not be violated thereon."
2. SAME--Proceedings in Rem--Effect of Death. Proceedings in rem for the suppression of a liquor nuisance at the instance of the state do not abate because of the death of a defendant.
3. SAME--Injunctions--Proceedings by State to Enforce. The state is not limited to proceedings in personam in contempt of court in its efforts to enforce obedience to an injunction against the maintenance of a liquor nuisance, but may also secure the abatement of such nuisance by appropriate and reasonable measures instituted by proceedings in rem.
4. SAME--Injunctions--Constitutional Authority to Padlock. Constitutional objections to an order of court for the abatement of a liquor nuisance by ouster of the occupants and padlocking the premises considered and not sustained.
5. SAME--Evidence. Record examined and held to contain evidence sufficient to support the judgment.
P. L. Courtright, of Independence, for the appellants.
William A. Smith, attorney-general, R. P. Mason, assistant attorney-general, Warren B. Grant, county attorney, T. F. Varner, city attorney, and Charles D. Shukers, of Independence, for the appellee.
On June 3, 1927, the state filed a motion for a writ of abatement and padlock order, alleging that at divers times after the granting of the injunction of April 30, 1924, and particularly since May 28, 1927, the property covered by the injunction had continued to be a place where intoxicating liquors were unlawfully sold and where persons were permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquors, and that persons were permitted to keep such liquors in their possession on the premises in violation of law.
Defendants Charles and Emma Richardson filed objections to the jurisdiction of the court, and denied the power of the court to "change or add to the original judgment" or to issue any padlock order, and raised the point that the facts alleged in the state's motion stated no cause of action, and invoked the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the federal constitution and the bill of rights of the Kansas constitution against the objects sought to be accomplished in plaintiff's motion.
On June 4, 1927, the plaintiff's motion for the writ of abatement and padlock order and defendants' objections thereto came on for hearing. The court heard what evidence the parties had to offer, and took the cause under advisement "with leave to either party to introduce additional evidence thereon." Some time afterwards the state renewed its motion for a writ of abatement and padlock order, setting up substantially the same facts as those contained in its motion of June 3, with the additional allegation that the liquor nuisance of which it had already complained was still being maintained on the premises. To this motion defendants filed objections similar to those urged against the state's motion of June 3.
On December 2, 1927, the state presented additional evidence in support of its motion, and "the court not being fully advised in the premises, doth take said motion under advisement and continued the hearing thereof."
On December 28, 1928, Charles Richardson died [intestate] leaving as his heirs his wife, Emma Richardson, codefendant in this proceeding, and his two daughters, Lorena Thomas and Willie Evans. On January 27, 1929, notice of the pendency of the proceedings was served on the daughters, Lorena and Willie, and they were apprised that further evidence in support of the state's motion would be presented on February 2, 1929; and on that date the state and defendant Emma Richardson presented additional evidence in the cause. Emma Richardson renewed her objections to the proceedings, and demurred to the state's evidence. Lorena Thomas made what her counsel chose to characterize as a special appearance and objected on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction, that there had been no revivorship of the proceeding following the death of Charles Richardson, and that the state's motion did not state facts sufficient to show that she had any knowledge of or had consented to the use of the property in any unlawful way. She also invoked the federal constitution and the Kansas bill of rights against the order prayed for by the state. The judgment record then proceeds thus:
"And thereupon the court, being now fully advised in the premises doth find that the motion of the plaintiff should be sustained; that the judgment of permanent injunction of said court heretofore rendered in said cause on the 30th day of April, 1924, has been violated in that intoxicating liquors have been kept for sale and sold on said premises, and persons have been permitted to resort thereto for the purpose of drinking and possessing intoxicating liquors in violation of the law; that in order to protect the judgment of the court and prevent the violation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kentucky Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd. v. Jacobs
...states see United States v. Reisenweber, 2 Cir., 288 F. 520; Gabriel Building Co. v. State, 125 Ohio St. 642, 186 N.E. 5; State v. Richardson, 128 Kan. 627, 278 P. 752. The suppression of a nuisance injurious to public health or morals is among the most important duties of government. The s......
-
State v. Coleman, 37728
...that the premises had been adjudicated to be a nuisance. State v. Porter, 79 Kan. 411, 91 P. 1073, 13 L.R.A.,N.S., 462; State v. Richardson, 128 Kan. 627, 631, 278 P. 752; State ex rel. Harley v. Ramsey, 151 Kan. 764, 767, 100 P.2d 637. For a further discussion of this rule as well as a con......
-
State ex rel. Graham v. Russell, 38463
...with quotations from the old law. See G.S.1935, 21-2109, et seq., and especially G.S.1935, 21-2131, 21-2132, and also State v. Richardson, 128 Kan. 627, 278 P. 752. It will be seen that the old law did not specifically authorize padlocking. It was authorized under our decisions only by reas......
-
State v. Jones
... ... a defendant in this case was void. Presumably by that is ... meant the order of attachment. Defendant argues that she had ... no actual notice or personal knowledge of any injunction ... against the premises involved here. This court considered ... such an argument in State v. Richardson, 128 Kan ... 627, 278 P. 752, 754. There the proceedings were to abate the ... nuisance rather than to punish for contempt. The original ... party against whom the injunction had been granted had died ... before the proceedings to abate had been begun. This court ... said: "An injunction ... ...