State v. Forner

Supreme Court of Kansas

State v. Forner

89 P. 674, 75 Kan. 836, 1907 Kan. LEXIS 149

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMarch 9, 1907

DocketNo. 15,138

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 89 P. 674 (State v. Forner) 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. Forner, 89 P. 674, 75 Kan. 836, 1907 Kan. LEXIS 149 (kan 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The district court made an order temporarily enjoining appellant from keeping a place where intoxicating liquors were sold in violation of law. An accusation was afterward filed charging him with a violation of the order. He was convicted, and appeals.

The errors he complains of are based almost entirely upon a misconception of the character of the proceedings in contempt in such cases. The court upon complaint filed in the original suit may inquire into and [837]*837punish a violation of the temporary injunction. The proceeding is a part of the injunction suit. (The State v. Thomas, 74 Kan. 360, 86 Pac. 499.)

The accusation need not possess the formalities of an indictment or information, and no arraignment of the accused is necessary. Nor can the state be required to elect upon which particular charge it relies for conviction. The contention, argued at length, that before the court could find the accused guilty of contempt the state must prove that he did not have a druggist’s permit has been decided against appellant in The State v. Plamondon, ante, p. 269. It was not incumbent upon the state to show that the prosecutor had personal knowledge of the violation of the injunction. It was so decided in The State v. Thomas, supra. There was an abundance of evidence to sustain the finding of the trial court and support the conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

The district court made an order temporarily enjoining appellant from keeping a place where intoxicating liquors were sold in violation of law. An accusation was afterward filed charging him with a violation of the order. He was convicted, and appeals.

The errors he complains of are based almost entirely upon a misconception of the character of the proceedings in contempt in such cases. The court upon complaint filed in the original suit may inquire into and [837]*837punish a violation of the temporary injunction. The proceeding is a part of the injunction suit. (The State v. Thomas, 74 Kan. 360, 86 Pac. 499.)

The accusation need not possess the formalities of an indictment or information, and no arraignment of the accused is necessary. Nor can the state be required to elect upon which particular charge it relies for conviction. The contention, argued at length, that before the court could find the accused guilty of contempt the state must prove that he did not have a druggist’s permit has been decided against appellant in The State v. Plamondon, ante, p. 269. It was not incumbent upon the state to show that the prosecutor had personal knowledge of the violation of the injunction. It was so decided in The State v. Thomas, supra. There was an abundance of evidence to sustain the finding of the trial court and support the conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 P. 674, 75 Kan. 836, 1907 Kan. LEXIS 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-forner-kan-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack