Case Title: State v. Turner

Citation: 183 Kan. 496, 328 P.2d 733

Docket Number: 40,819

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1958-08-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
183 Kan. 496 (1958)
328 P.2d 733
THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
v.
H.B. TURNER, ARTHUR L. SWEENEY, P.C. COPELAND and PETER L. MENSER, Appellants.
No. 40,819

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed August 1, 1958.
Albert M. Ross, of Kansas City, and Marvin E. Lewis, of San Francisco, California, argued the cause, and Joseph Cohen, Charles S. Schnider, John E. Shamberg and Joseph P. Jenkins, all of Kansas City, and Martin E. Field, Sidney F. DeGoff and Pierce N. Stein, all of San Francisco, California, were with them on the briefs for the appellants.
James P. Davis, Assistant County Attorney, William H. Towers, of Kansas City, and Prentice A. Townsend, of Topeka, argued the cause, and John Anderson, Jr., Attorney General, and Donald E. Martin, County Attorney, were with them on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PRICE, J.:
Defendants were found guilty by a jury of violating the provisions of what now appears as G.S. 1957 Supp., 75-427. Each was ordered to pay a fine of $5.00 and the costs of the action, and this appeal followed.
Due to the nature of the case, it will be necessary to set out or summarize the provisions of Chapter 397, Laws of 1953, relating to the registration of names and insignia of certain organizations, now appearing as G.S. 1957 Supp., 75-421 to 427, inclusive. Unless otherwise indicated, all references are to G.S. 1957 Supp.
75-421 provides:
75-422 provides:
75-423 provides that the secretary of state shall keep a properly indexed record of the registrations provided for, which record shall also show any altered or canceled registration.
75-424 provides:
75-425 provides that upon granting registration the secretary of state shall issue his certificate to the petitioners showing that a search of his records fails to disclose any conflict between the name, badge, button, decoration, charm, emblem, rosette or other insignia proposed to be registered, and any other name, badge, button, decoration, charm, emblem, rosette or other insignia registered pursuant thereto.
75-426 provides for the fee to be charged by the secretary of state for each registration made pursuant to the act.
75-427 provides:
G.S. 1949, 21-1308 (enacted in 1903) provides:
The information upon which defendants were tried charged:
At the close of the state's evidence the trial court sustained defendants' motion for discharge insofar as their use of a "name" similar to the Prince Hall organization was concerned. Defendants introduced their evidence and the case was submitted to the jury on the question whether defendants had violated the provisions of the statute by "wearing and displaying a Masonic emblem and apron which had been duly registered by the Prince Hall Grand Lodge in accordance with said statutes."
As stated, a verdict of guilty was returned. Defendants filed a motion for a new trial containing nineteen grounds, most of which had to do with alleged errors and irregularities during the trial. This motion was overruled and sentence, as heretofore mentioned, was imposed.
Defendants' notice of appeal reads that they "... have and do hereby appeal to the Supreme Court of Kansas from the judgment rendered on a verdict returned by a jury in the above entitled action, on the 22nd day of May, 1957, whereby it was by the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, decided, ordered and *500 adjudged that defendants were guilty of a violation of Sections 75-421 to 75-427 inclusive, G.S. Supplement 1953, and whereby the court fined $5.00 each and costs."
Defendants assert nine specifications of error, one of which is that the court erred in overruling their motion for a new trial.
It is to be noted, however, that they did not appeal from the order overruling the motion for a new trial. Therefore, despite their assignment of that order as error, alleged errors and irregularities occurring during the trial, that is, trial errors, are not reviewable. Application of this rule has been invoked under varying facts and circumstances. The most frequent instance is where an appeal is taken from the order overruling a motion for a new trial, but an appellant neglects to assign such ruling as error in his specifications of error. Here we have just the reverse, but the end result is the same and amounts simply to this  matters specified as error, in order to be reviewable, must be within the purview of those matters contained in the notice of appeal, and when an appellant seeks to have this court review alleged trial errors he must appeal from the order overruling his motion for a new trial, and, in addition, must assign such ruling as error. We cite but a few of our decisions on the subject  Hardman Lumber Co. v. Spitznaugle, 130 Kan. 346, 286 Pac. 235; In re Estate of Young, 169 Kan. 20, 217 P.2d 269; Crowder v. Lindbergh, 175 Kan. 671, 265 P.2d 851; McCarty v. Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Co., 176 Kan. 386, 389, 271 P.2d 264; Baker v. Maguire's, Inc., 176 Kan. 579, 580, 272 P.2d 739; State, ex rel., v. Miller, 177 Kan. 324, 279 P.2d 223, 52 A.L.R.2d 691, and King v. King, 183 Kan. 406, 408, 327 P.2d 865. The rule is equally applicable to appeals in criminal cases and thus precludes our review of alleged trial errors in the case before us.
Application of the rule does not, however, prevent a review of pure questions of law. (See State, ex rel., v. Miller, supra, at pp. 329, 330.)
At the close of all of the evidence defendants moved for discharge on several grounds, one of which was that "the law under which the prosecution in this case is had is violative of the rights of the defendants under the Constitution of the United States and the Fourteenth Amendment thereof." The same general contention was included in the motion for a new trial and the specifications of error.
Defendants' brief likewise deals in generalities, but, if we understand their position correctly, it is to the effect the statutes in question *501 deprive defendants' organization of its property without due process of law and amount to an unlawful exercise of the police power of the state. Some reference also is made to the first amendment to the federal constitution. (See Sester v. Belvue Drainage District, 162 Kan. 1, 6, 173 P.2d 619, in which it was said that the first ten amendments to the federal constitution are limitations only on the power of the federal government and do not apply to the state.)
Be that as it may, we nevertheless will discuss briefly the apparent contention of defendants insofar as section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution is concerned.
The case of Hammer v. State (1909), 173 Ind. 199, 89 N.E. 850, also reported at 24 L.R.A. (NS) 795, 140 Am. St. Rep. 248, 21 Ann. Cas. 1034, is perhaps the leading case on the subject. There the defendant was charged with unlawfully wearing the badge and emblem adopted by an incorporated secret society of the state, he at the time not being a member of the society. He was convicted and fined. On appeal to the Indiana supreme court it was contended, among other things, that the law under which the prosecution was had was violative of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution. In rejecting this contention it was held that no constitutional privileges or immunities are denied a citizen by a statute forbidding him to wear the badge of a secret society of which he is not a member, nor are exclusive privileges unlawfully conferred by such legislation, and that the legislature may under its police power pass such legislation. In the course of the opinion it was said:
See also 4 Am. Jur., Associations and Clubs, § 38, p. 479; 22 Am. Jur., False Pretenses, § 77, p. 486, and annotations found at 43 A.L.R. 914, and 62 A.L.R. 798.
We agree with the holding of the supreme court of Indiana, and, there being no decision of this court to the contrary, believe that it should be followed in the case before us. The judgment is therefore affirmed.