Case Name: The State of Kansas v. Mrs. Joseph Antram
Court: Kansas Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1898-12-23
Citations: 8 Kan. App. 503
Docket Number: No. 522
Parties: The State of Kansas v. Mrs. Joseph Antram.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases decided in the Courts of Appeals of the state of Kansas
Volume: 8
Pages: 503–504

Head Matter:
The State of Kansas v. Mrs. Joseph Antram.
No. 522.
Criminal Law — Misdemeanor — Plea in Abatement. Plea in abatement to an information charging misdemeanors, which alleged pendency of another action in a court of concurrent jurisdiction for the same offenses, held insufficient, for the reason that it did not show pendency of first action at the time the plea was filed. (The State v. Curtis, 29 Kan. 384.)
Appeal from Bourbon district court; W. L. Simons, judge.
Opinion filed December 23, 1898.
Affirmed.
No brief for The State.
W. R. Biddle, for appellant.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Milton, J.:
Appellant was convicted in the district court of Bourbon county on one count of an information containing three counts charging' unlawful sales of intoxicating liquors at the dates therein named. Fifty days after the information was filed the defendant filed a plea in abatement of the same on the ground that at the time the present action was begun she was under bond to appear before a justice of the peace of the city of Fort Scott, in Bourbon county, to abide the order of said court in a criminal action on the same charges as those set forth in said information. The state's demurrer to this plea " for the reason that said plea shows no sufficient grounds to abate said action " was sustained by the court. JMo motion for a new trial appears in the record. Practically all of the alleged ex'rors relate to matters occurring on the trial and cannot be coxisidered.
The plea in abatement did not show that the action which was pending before the justice of the peace at the time the information was filed was pending and undetermined at the tixne the plea itself was filed. It was, therefore, clearly insufficient, and the case falls within the doctrine declax'ed in The State v. Curtis, 29 Kan. 384.
The verdict is sustained by competent evidence, and the judgment following the verdict must, in the absence of a motion for a new trial, be held proper, and it is accordingly affirmed.