The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1901-02-15
KANSAS NEWS.
A Case Settled by the Cloud
County Court
And Afterwards Affirmed by
Supreme Court.
JOINTS HAVE RIGHTS.
Property Must Not Be DESTROYED
LNTS HAVE RIGHTS.
Property Must Not Be Destroyed
by Smashing Raids
without Intervention of Law
Even If UnIaWfulIy Engaged.

Concordia, Feb. 15.-The smashing OF sa-
looms by Mrs. Nation and others IS claim
ed TO be legally right and that property
connected with the operation of joint
has no rights at law. But lawyers diner
on this subject.
This very question came up in case
tried in this county at the January, 1893,
term, the case Of the State of Kansas,
plaintiff. VS.. Peter Hamnerli, defendant.
Hammeri5 kept Joint II lLonvals9f 11s us
sshafchet brigade and proceeded to the
joint of Hammerli, they testified. Tor
the purpose Of destroying the intoxicat-
ing liquors, the bottles and vessels IN
which they were kept, as well as bar NIX
lures and other property used in keeping
the joint and selling the liquor.
door, and on the attempt of the brigade
to break in he fred a loaded shotgun into
putting out an eye He was tried and
convicted on the ground, not that ne mad
joint, but that he had no. right to go fur
Their use more force than to him was
used was, under the circumstances UNI
reasonable and unnecessary and he there
fore was found guilty Of the offense
on the trial the state claimed, as Mrs.
Nation does, that the ladies' and their
and forcibly destroy it and che property
used in carrying it on. and that defend
erty-
The instruction asked by the state at
the request Of the county attorney, Mr.
Culver, and his associate, Mr.. Hardness,
was as follows:
'@The jury is instructed that all places
in this state where Intoxicating liquors
are manufactured, sold, bartered, or
given away. contrary to law, are COM
mon or public nuisances, and the law
will not protect the same, and the keep
er thereof can not be justified in using.
a deadly weapon in defense against a.
person or assernblage of persons who
are threatening or attempting to fore
IDLY destroy the same. Therefore, in
this case, if the jury find that the de-
PENDANT was the keeper of such a pub
lie or common nuisance, and that at the
time the door to his place was broken
by Cora Squires and others. he knew,
or had reasonable grounds to believe,
that the only purpose of the persons so
breaking in said door was to destroy
said place for sale, and to break and
destroy the vessels IN which the liquor
was contained, and that they did not
intend to do him any personal or bodily
injury, then in such case the defendant
had no legal right to use a deadly
entering said place"
This instruction the court refused to
give, and instead gave the following:
In this case, the fact, If fact it is,
that the defendant was a joint keeper
and his habitation a. joint, If it was,
and his property therein-liquor and
fixtures used in disposing of same, If
such is the case can make no difference.
The mere fact that some are engaged
in unlawful business does not give 9TH
ers any lawful right to destroy the prop
erty or injure the person of those so en-
gagged, without Intervention of law"
This case was taken to the supreme
court and decision affirmed by that
court October 1899