Court Opinion

ID: 9623949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:46:56.601915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:37.361231
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN
(concurring in part and dissenting in part) :
I concur in what is said in the foregoing opinion, except so far as it leaves the implication that the court erred in permitting the premises used by the Crown Cigar Store to be opened for legitimate business.
I think under section 94-1009 the district court has discretion to permit the premises to be opened for legitimate and legal use.
Of course, before the owner may have the premises restored for use, he must show that he has not been “guilty of any contempt of court in the proceedings. ’ ’
In my opinion “contempt of court in the proceedings” referred to in section 94-1009 means contempt in the proceedings before the court and not to contempt of court in certain proceedings transpiring many years before.
And the “good faith” referred to in section 94-1009 means and refers to the good faith in abating the nuisance and in preventing its recurrence in the future and not to the question as to whether the premises had theretofore been used for gambling or other illegal purpose.
The failure of the officers to find the gambling equipment on the premises does not establish contempt of court, particularly where as here there has been no hearing or trial on a charge of contempt, nor does it show lack of good faith as to future operations.
I think under the statute the district court has a wide discretion in either allowing or disallowing an application to permit the premises to be used for a lawful purpose and that we should not interfere with that discretion except in case of a clear abuse thereof, and that no such abuse is shown here.
If the majority opinion does not carry the implication that *321the court erred in permitting the premises to be opened for legitimate use, then the opinion leaves undecided one of the main questions presented by the appeal. If, on the other hand, the opinion carries the implication that the closing of the Copper Kings Club premises requires a closing of the Crown Cigar premises, then I think it treats of the question prematurely. I think that whether the premises are so separated into different compartments that the closing of the one should operate as a closing of the other should first be presented to the trial court.