State v. Davidson

Supreme Court of Kansas

State v. Davidson

15 P.2d 404, 136 Kan. 406, 1932 Kan. LEXIS 92

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedNovember 5, 1932

DocketNo. 30,786

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 P.2d 404 (State v. Davidson) 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

State v. Davidson, 15 P.2d 404, 136 Kan. 406, 1932 Kan. LEXIS 92 (kan 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Smith, J.:

This action was brought by the state against an auto[407]*407mobile. Judgment was for the state. The holder of a chattel mortgage on the car appeals.

The owner of the car was driving it west on Highway No. 40. A deputy sheriff noticed by the back springs that it carried a heavy load. He stopped the car and searched it. He found forty gallons of intoxicating liquor. The driver pleaded guilty on three counts and was sentenced. This action was brought under the provisions of R. S. 21-2162 et seq. Trial was had to the court and the car was condemned and ordered sold.

Appellant Atlas Acceptance Corporation demanded a jury trial as a matter of right. This was denied. Appellant claims this was error. We long ago passed that milestone in the history of enforcement of the liquor statutes in the case of State v. Lee, 113 Kan. 462, 215 Pac. 299. Appellant further claims that since the liquor was seized without a warrant any evidence with reference to the liquor is inadmissible. That point is not good. (See State v. Johnson, 116 Kan. 58, 226 Pac. 245.) Other errors urged in the brief of appellant are not deemed worthy of treatment here. •

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Smith, J.:

This action was brought by the state against an auto[407]*407mobile. Judgment was for the state. The holder of a chattel mortgage on the car appeals.

The owner of the car was driving it west on Highway No. 40. A deputy sheriff noticed by the back springs that it carried a heavy load. He stopped the car and searched it. He found forty gallons of intoxicating liquor. The driver pleaded guilty on three counts and was sentenced. This action was brought under the provisions of R. S. 21-2162 et seq. Trial was had to the court and the car was condemned and ordered sold.

Appellant Atlas Acceptance Corporation demanded a jury trial as a matter of right. This was denied. Appellant claims this was error. We long ago passed that milestone in the history of enforcement of the liquor statutes in the case of State v. Lee, 113 Kan. 462, 215 Pac. 299. Appellant further claims that since the liquor was seized without a warrant any evidence with reference to the liquor is inadmissible. That point is not good. (See State v. Johnson, 116 Kan. 58, 226 Pac. 245.) Other errors urged in the brief of appellant are not deemed worthy of treatment here. •

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 P.2d 404, 136 Kan. 406, 1932 Kan. LEXIS 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-davidson-kan-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack