People's voice. [volume] (Wellington, Sumner County, Kansas) 1890-1917, 1898-08-18
The fliilard Contempt Case.

| CdVuludJ NY w tue pOilCe yuug6 Is
sued an attachment for Assistant
Marshal MIllard to appear in court to
answer to the charge Of contempt for
not Obeying the order of the court 10
the KOnrad repleyin case. The case
was set fOr 3 O'Clock Monday afternoon
when che defendant answered and
plead not guilty. Police Judge Bur.
nette thereupOn made the following
order:
For some time past I have been
waitingforan opportunity to pass upon
the question Of whether or not there
is seizure clause in orr intoxicating
liquor ordinance. This question vas
indirectly referred to by Mr. Ready in
the john Roth case aud also by Mr.,
Haukhey in the VIM. HASTE case but
it was not brought before the court
on motion to dismiss or 10 any other
shape 50 it could be passed upon by
the Court. In this case Of the CityvS.
Konrad / saw an opportunity TO raise
this question myself and | nave avail
ed myself Of that opportunity. |
knew beforehand That Mr.. Willard
would refuse 20 obey the order requir-
Ing him 10 turn the goods seized over
to the city attorney. | also knew
that this Won upon It's face, be an
app1rtn! contempt Of court. l also
saw farther Tito it than this. l knew
that when he was cited as for a con-
tempt the chief question upon the
citation would be, not that l had no
authority to make the order but that,
primarily, had no authority to issue
a seizure warrant and that he had no
authority to make the seizare as com.
manded by me. IL my opinion this is
the chief question in all these liquor
cases and il is the question that |
shall now endeayOr to decide.
SIN the General Prohibitory Liquor
Law OF the state of Kansas, found on
page 375, Vol. 2, StatuteS of 1897 ser.
tiOn 80 authorizes and empowers the
district court, or other court having
jurisdiction, to declare all places
where intoxicating liquors are manu-.
featured, sold or bartered or given
away, to be common nuisances and
upon such Judgment Of such court the
sheriff or his deputies are Instructed
with the proper papers of course, to
shut up and abate such nuisances by
taking possession Of the same and BY
Selling all intoxicating liquors found
therein. A careful examination of
this section shows that it is applica-
BILE and authorizes seizures only after
judgment has been rendered declar-
ing such places to be common nui-
sances.
But there are two other sections
in said state law-sections so and 81
to be considered. These sections ex.
pressly authorize and empower the
county attorney to swear out com.
plant and to have warrant issued
directing the sheriff or his deputies to
seize and take charge Of Intoxicating
liquors at the time the arrest of the
defendant is made. Under these sec.
tions, and these sections alone, can
the seizure be made at the timeof the
arrest Of the defendant and before a
trial is had and judgment Of guilty
been entered.
But 80 much for the state law. |
have only cited it to show whereupon
my decision upon the city ordinance
is based. Now for the city ordinance:
"A careful examination of this ord
inance-Ordinance No. 42O, page So of
Ordinance Book OF 1SS7-discloses the
fact that there is only one section
that says anything cOncerng the Ques-
tion OF seizures of Intoxicating liquors.
That is section 9. Careful considera.
tlon OF this section disclOseS the fact
that it is exactly, word for word, a re.
print of Section 80 of the State Law
above mentioned, authorizing seizures
only after a judgment has been rend-
red declaring such places to be COM
mon nuisances. The only difference
between the ordinance and the state
law is in the use of the names of the
city marshal and assistants instead of
the sheriff and deputies. There is also
difference in the penalties pre-
scribed, but that is immaterial TO tbi,
case. Now, if Section 80 of the State
Law authorizes seizures only after
Judgment has been rendered, then
Section 9of the City Ordinance, being
exactly the same, can only authorize
seizures to be made after judgment
has been rendered. There is no other
section in the Prohibitory Liquor
ordinance, outside Of this section 9,
concerning the subject of seizures.
consequently there is no need of dis.
cussing this question any further.
I