The City of Kansas City v. Garnier

• Decision Date: 07 November 1896
• Docket Number: 10599
• Citation: 57 Kan. 412,46 P. 707
• Parties: THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY v. F. A. GARNIER
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

46 P. 707

57 Kan. 412

THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY v. F. A. GARNIER

No. 10599

Supreme Court of Kansas

November 7, 1896

Decided July, 1896.

Appeal from Wyandotte District Court Hon. Henry L. Alden, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Judgment reversed.

K. P Snyder, City Counselor, and T. A. Pollock, City Attorney, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

JOHNSTON J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, J.

This is an appeal from the ruling of the District Court quashing a complaint which charged F. A. Garnier with the violation of a city ordinance regulating the business of pawnbrokers. The defendant was convicted in the Police Court, where a fine of $ 25 was imposed. To obtain an appeal he gave a recognizance, and it with the warrant and transcript of the proceedings were transmitted to the District Court. There, on motion of the defendant, the complaint was quashed and the defendant discharged.

Upon this appeal the City contends that the District Court had no jurisdiction, because the recognizance on appeal was defective; and an elaborate argument is made to show that it is void on its face. We think the statutory provision With reference to appeals was substantially complied with. It gave the title of the cause; it recited the rendition of the judgment, that an appeal had been taken therefrom, and that the principal and one surety acknowledged themselves indebted to the city of Kansas City in a sufficient sum; and the condition was that Garnier should personally be and appear before the District Court of Wyandotte County on the first day of the next term to be holden in that county, to answer the complaint made against him and to abide the judgment of the Court. It was taken by the Police Judge and the surety approved by him. When it was transmitted to the District Court it became a matter of record there, and it appears to accord with the general practice in respect to taking appeals. It is defective in this: That it does not definitely designate the offense of which the defendant was convicted; but as it refers to the complaint, which was transmitted and became a matter of record with the recognizance, there is no difficulty in ascertaining the offense, and the defect is no more than an irregularity.

Another alleged defect is that the recognizance runs to the City instead of the State. The statute does not provide that recognizances shall be given to the State, nor does it designate to whom they shall be executed; but, as the offense was a mere violation of a municipal regulation, we think it was properly executed to the City. None of the defects suggested by the City destroy the validity of the bond or take away the jurisdiction of the Court over the subject-matter.

The trial court quashed the complaint upon a motion alleging that it did not charge an offense against the law of the State or an ordinance of the City, and because the ordinance upon which the complaint is based is illegal and void. The specific ground upon which the judgment quashing the complaint was based is not stated, and no appearance has been made here in behalf of the defendant. The ordinance provides that every pawnbroker shall keep at his place of business a register in which he shall enter in writing a minute description of every kind of property taken, purchased or received, the amount loaned thereon, the interest charged and when the loan falls due. He is also required to give the person leaving the property a receipt in which the...