State v. Sumner

• Decision Date: 10 June 1950
• Docket Number: No. 37996,37996
• Citation: State v. Sumner, 219 P.2d 438, 169 Kan. 516 (Kan. 1950)
• Parties: STATE v. SUMNER.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 438

219 P.2d 438

169 Kan. 516

STATE v.SUMNER.

No. 37996.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

June 10, 1950.

Syllabus by the Court.

1.In order to ascertain the legislative intentcourts are not permitted to consider only a certain isolated part, or parts, of an act but are required to consider and construe together all parts thereof in pari materia.

2.It is the duty of courts to reconcile various provisions of an act in order to make them consistent, harmonious and sensible if that can be done without doing violence to plain provisions therein contained.

3.When the interpretation of some one section of an act according to the exact and literal import of its words would contravene the manifest purpose of the legislature, the entire act should be construed according to its spirit and reason, disregarding so far as may be necessary the strict letter of the law.

4.Pertinent provisions of the Kansas liquor control act, chapter 242,Laws 1949 examined, construed ahd held: (1) It was the legislative intent and purpose to limit, as designated in the act, the quantity of untaxed and unstamped alcoholic liquor which might be possessed by any person for the personal use of himself, his family and guests between the effective date of the act, March 9, 1949, and thirty days after the issuance of the governor's proclamation; and (2) count three, which alleged defendant on May 11, 1949, (prior to the governor's proclamation) had possession of more than one case of alcoholic liquor (three wine gallons) upon which the tax imposed by the act had not been paid and upon the containers of which stamps had not been affixed, stated an offense under the act.

Carl C. Chase, of Eureka, argued the cause, and George S. Reynolds, County Attorney, and Leonard A. Milligan, of Eureka, were with him on the briefs for the appellant.

Thomas C. Forbes, of Eureka, argued the cause, and Harold G. Forbes, of Eureka, and Patrick J. Warnick, of Wichita, were with him on the briefs for the appellee.

WEDELL, Justice.

The state appeals from an order quashing count three of a complaint filed under the new Kansas liquor control act.Chapter 242,Laws 1949.

Count three charged the defendant, Ronald Paul(Buck) Sumner, with unlawfully and wilfully having and keeping in his possession on May 11, 1949, alcoholic liquor in an amount exceeding one case (three wine gallons) upon which the tax imposed by the Kansas liquor control act had not been paid and upon the containers of which each mark and stamp required by the act had not been affixed.

Defendant was convicted in the county court of Greenwood county and appealed to the district court.It appears no information had been filed in the latter court.The motion to quash was directed against the original complaint on the ground it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant and the facts alleged therein did not constitute a violation of the laws of this state.

The validity of the court's ruling depends on the proper interpretation of certain sections of the new liquor control act.The pertinent portion of section 4 of that act reads: 'No person shall * * * possess any alcoholic liquor for beverage purposes, except as specifically provided in this act: Provided, That nothing contained in this act shall prevent: (1) The possession and transportation of alcoholic liquor for the personal use of the possessor, his family and guests except that the provisions of section 112 of this act relating to transportation and the provisions of section 50 of this act shall be applicable to all persons * * *.'(Our italics.)

The pertinent portion of section 50 provides: 'It shall be unlawful for any person (1) to evade, or attempt to evade, the payment of tax or duty on any such alcoholic liquor, in any manner whatever, and * * * (2) to have in his possession any cask or package of such liquor, without having thereon each make and stamp required therefor by law; and such cask or package not having the mark or stamp as aforesaid, shall be forfeited to the state of Kansas * * * Provided, That nothing contained in this section shall make it unlawful for any person to possess or transport not to exceed two quarts or alcoholic liquor for the personal use of the possessor, his family and guests upon which the tax imposed by this act has not been paid or on the containers of which each mark and stamp required by this act has not been affixed: Provided further, That until thirty (30) days after the governor shall issue the proclamation provided for by section 112 of this act, nothing contained in this section shall make it unlawful for any person to possess or transport not to exceed one case (three wine gallons) of alcoholic liquor for the personal use of the possessor, his family and guests upon which such tax has not been paid or on the containers of which have not been affixed such marks and stamps.Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor * * *.'(Our italics.)

The pertinent part of section 112 states: 'Upon the taking effect of this act, the possession and transportation of alcoholic liquor for personal use only shall be legal: Provided, That until such time as the governor shall issue a proclamation declaring that the tax and licensing provisions of this act are in full operation and being administered by the director which proclamation shall be issued by the governor on or before July 1, 1949, it shall be unlawful for any person to transport more than one case (three wine gallons) of alcoholic liquor at any one time for any use or purpose whatsoever * * *.'(Our italics.)

The new law became effective March 9, 1949.The complaint charged the offense was committed May 11, 1949.As provided in section 112 the governor had until July 1, 1949, to issue his proclamation declaring the tax and licensing provisions of the act were in full operation and were being administered by the director.The governor's proclamation was issued June 6, 1949.

In quashing count three the trial court indicated the theory upon which it did so.In commenting on its decision the trial court appears to have placed particular emphasis on section 112.It...