State v. Sheppard
| Decision Date | 08 February 1902 |
| Docket Number | 12,746 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. WILLIAM SHEPPARD |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1902.
Appeal from Barton district court; ANSEL R. CLARK, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS -- Possession as Prima Facie Evidence. It is within the constitutional power of the legislature to declare the possession of intoxicating liquor except in a private dwelling unconnected with a place of business, by a person not legally authorized to sell such liquor, to be prima facie evidence of its possession for purposes of illegal sale.
2. INTOXICATING LIQUORS -- Act of 1901 Held Valid. The title of chapter 232, Laws of 1901 (Gen. Stat. 1901, §§ 2493-2500), being "An act relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors, and the suppression of places where such liquors are sold or used or kept for sale or use contrary to law," is sufficiently broad to include the subject of the legislative rule of evidence declared in section 8 of the act.
A. A. Godard, attorney general, J. S. West, and James W. Clarke, county attorney, for The State.
D. A. Banta, for appellant.
OPINION
William Sheppard, the appellant, was convicted of maintaining the nuisance of a place where intoxicating liquors were kept for sale in violation of law. The claim of error most strenuously urged is that the court gave effect to that portion of section 8 of chapter 232, Laws of 1901 (Gen. Stat. 1901, § 2500), which reads as follows:
"In all prosecutions, either under the state laws or under municipal ordinances, for maintaining a common nuisance as hereinbefore defined, the finding of intoxicating liquors in the possession of one not legally authorized to sell the same, except in a private dwelling-house not used in connection with a place of business, shall be prima facie evidence that such liquors are kept for sale or used in violation of law."
The precise objection to this statute is not stated in any concrete form; that is, no particular constitutional provision violated by it has been named or pointed out. However, we suppose the claim to be the same that has been made in other states against similar statutes -- that it is repugnant to the constitutional guaranties of due process of law and trial by jury. It is not invalid for such reason. The legislature has some power over the rules of evidence. It may make a fact or circumstance which,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chapman v. Boynton
...P. 204; see, also, State v. Queen, 103 Kan. 632, 176 P. 111; possession is prima facie evidence when, section held valid, State v. Sheppard, 64 Kan. 451, 67 P. 870; common nuisance, liquor, glasses, pumps, faucets, etc., should be destroyed, State v. Poggmeyer, 91 Kan. 633, 138 P. 593; the ......
-
State v. Lewis
...101 Or. 410, 200 Pac. 926;State v. Harding, 108 Wash. 606, 185 Pac. 579;State v. Blackwell, 103 Wash. 337, 174 Pac. 646;State v. Sheppard, 64 Kan. 451, 67 Pac. 870;Durfee v. State, 53 Neb. 214, 73 N. W. 676;Parsons v. State, 61 Neb. 244, 85 N. W. 65;Caffee v. State, 11 Okl. Cr. 485, 148 Pac......
-
State v. Lewis
...101 Or. 410, 200 P. 926; State v. Harding, 108 Wash. 606, 185 P. 579; State v. Blackwell, 103 Wash. 337, 174 P. 646; State v. Sheppard, 64 Kan. 451, 67 P. 870; Durfee v. State, 53 Neb. 214, 73 N.W. Parsons v. State, 61 Neb. 244, 85 N.W. 65; Caffee v. State, 11 Okl. Cr. 485, 148 P. 680; Sell......
-
State v. Lapointe
...A. (N. S.) 1011, 113 Am. St. Rep. 17, 6 Ann. Cas. 744; Banks v. State, 124 Ga. 15, 52 S. E. 74, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1007; State v. Sheppard, 64 Kan. 451, 67 Pac. 870; Faith v. State, 32 Tex. 373. In others, there is much discussion and scant conclusion. State v. Beach, 147 Ind. 74, 43 N. E. ......