The State v. Rose

• Decision Date: 10 October 1908
• Docket Number: 14,646
• Citation: 78 Kan. 600,97 P. 788
• Parties: THE STATE, ex rel. C. C. Coleman, as Attorney-general, v. W. W. ROSE
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

97 P. 788

78 Kan. 600

THE STATE, ex rel. C. C. Coleman, as Attorney-general, v. W. W. ROSE

No. 14,646

Supreme Court of Kansas

October 10, 1908

Decided July, 1908.

Motions relating to the disposition of a fine imposed by the supreme court. Motion of Wyandotte county allowed. Motion of Shawnee county denied.

Motion on behalf of Shawnee county denied.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

FINES--Imposition by Supreme Court--Disposition of Proceeds. The proceeds of a fine imposed by this court in a contempt proceeding should be paid into the treasury of the county where the liability to the fine was incurred, for the benefit of the school fund, and not into the treasury of the county where the fine was imposed or where it was paid or collected.

J. J Schenck, county attorney, for Shawnee county.

Joseph Taggart, county attorney, for Wyandotte county.

OPINION

BURCH, J.:

In April, 1906, a judgment was rendered in this court in favor of the state ousting W. W. Rose from the office of mayor of the city of Kansas City. Subsequently, in violation of this judgment, Rose undertook to exercise the functions of the office named, his conduct in that respect being exhibited, of course, in Wyandotte county. He was cited for contempt, and on July 6, 1906, found guilty and fined in the sum of $ 1000. (The State v. Rose, 74 Kan. 262, 86 P. 296, 6 L. R. A., n. s., 843.) The fine was imposed by the court while sitting in Shawnee county, where all its sessions are held. The fine was collected by the clerk of this court, and was paid to him in Shawnee county.

The counties of Wyandotte and Shawnee make separate claims to the money, for the benefit of their respective school funds. The constitution contains the following provision:

"The proceeds of fines for any breach of the penal laws shall be exclusively applied in the several counties in which the money is paid or fines collected, to the support of common schools." (Const., art. 6, § 6.)

Section 332 of the code of criminal procedure reads as follows:

"All fines and penalties imposed and all forfeitures incurred in any county shall be paid into the treasury thereof, to be applied to the support of the common schools." (Gen. Stat. 1901, § 5770.)

The jurisdiction of this court is coextensive with the territory of the state. Its sessions, however, must be held in some locality within the confines of a county. The constitution requires one term each year to be held at the seat of government. The legislature may require other terms to be held elsewhere, but it has not done so. The question is, therefore, if the accidental circumstance of the present transaction of all the court's business at Topeka makes Shawnee county the beneficiary of all fines it may impose.

The words "fine," "penalty" and "forfeiture" sometimes have technical and restricted significations, and at other times overlap and run together in meaning. When one of them is used in a statute or constitution the true intent must be ascertained according to the ordinary methods of interpretation. The same is true of the words "penal laws" found in the constitutional provision quoted.

It is not necessary that fines for contempts of this court should have been specifically in the minds of the authors of either the constitution or the statute. The designation of a class includes everything properly belonging to the class. Jurisdiction to administer punishment by way of fines for contempts inheres as a common-law attribute in the grant of judicial power to the court. The law upon the subject of contempt is well defined and well understood, and its penal character can not plausibly be questioned. Indeed, proceedings in contempt, except in certain special cases, were criminal under the common law (Rapalje, Cont. 25; Oswald, Cont., Com. & Att., 2d ed., 99, 199), and this common-law quality of criminality continues to characterize them to such an extent that general provisions of the code of criminal procedure are frequently applied to them. (The State v. Dent, 29 Kan. 416; In re Sims, Petitioner, 54 Kan. 1, 4, 37 P. 135, 25 L. R. A. 110, 45 Am. St. Rep. 261, and cases there cited.) Therefore there can be no doubt that the money in controversy represents the proceeds of a fine, and of a fine imposed for a breach of the penal law.

The constitution does not undertake to say into what particular treasury fines for breaches of the penal laws shall go. Its purpose was to provide for the support of the common schools and it simply restricts the use to be made of moneys paid and fines collected in any county for breaches of the penal laws to the purpose designated. The aim of the statute was to aid and to supplement the constitution. It did this by making it a specific official duty to pay all fines and penalties duly collected into the county treasury, and included in the requirement all kinds of forfeitures. ...