Peterson v. City of Ottawa

Supreme Court of Kansas

Peterson v. City of Ottawa

41 Kan. 293

DecidedJanuary 15, 1889

StatusPublished

This text of 41 Kan. 293 (Peterson v. City of Ottawa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peterson v. City of Ottawa, 41 Kan. 293 (kan 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Cwriam:

Prank Peterson was convicted in the police court of the city of Ottawa upon a charge of violating a city ordinance which prohibits persons from performing any labor other than household offices of daily necessity or works of necessity or charity on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, and which forbids any person to keep open his place of business for the purpose of pursuing his usual vocation upon that day, except in cases of necessity or for charitable purposes. The ordinance is substantially a reenactment of the law of the state, as found in §§ 255 and 256 of the act regulating crimes and punishments. From this conviction he appealed to the district court, where he was again found guilty, and adjudged to pay a fine of five dollars and the costs of prosecution, and to stand committed until the fine and costs were paid. For the purpose of reversing that judgment, he attempts to bring the case to this court by petition in error and transcript of the record.

This court is without jurisdiction to review the rulings of the district court, as the case is a criminal one and can be brought to this court by appeal and upon notice to the clerk and prosecuting attorney only, and cannot be by petition in error. (Neitzel v. City of Concordia, 14 Kas. 447; McLean v. The State, 28 id. 372; The State v. Teissedre, 30 id. 210.)

The petition in error will be dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Cwriam:

Prank Peterson was convicted in the police court of the city of Ottawa upon a charge of violating a city ordinance which prohibits persons from performing any labor other than household offices of daily necessity or works of necessity or charity on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, and which forbids any person to keep open his place of business for the purpose of pursuing his usual vocation upon that day, except in cases of necessity or for charitable purposes. The ordinance is substantially a reenactment of the law of the state, as found in §§ 255 and 256 of the act regulating crimes and punishments. From this conviction he appealed to the district court, where he was again found guilty, and adjudged to pay a fine of five dollars and the costs of prosecution, and to stand committed until the fine and costs were paid. For the purpose of reversing that judgment, he attempts to bring the case to this court by petition in error and transcript of the record.

This court is without jurisdiction to review the rulings of the district court, as the case is a criminal one and can be brought to this court by appeal and upon notice to the clerk and prosecuting attorney only, and cannot be by petition in error. (Neitzel v. City of Concordia, 14 Kas. 447; McLean v. The State, 28 id. 372; The State v. Teissedre, 30 id. 210.)

The petition in error will be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 Kan. 293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peterson-v-city-of-ottawa-kan-1889.