State v. Seeger

70 P. 599, 65 Kan. 711, 1902 Kan. LEXIS 119
Supreme Court of Kansas·Decided November 8, 1902·No. No. 13,192·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Cunningham,. J.:

Appellants were convicted of keeping a nuisance, contrary to the provisions of section 2493, General Statutes of 1901. The complaint charged that the defendants maintained

“a place where intoxicating liquors are kept for sale, sold, bartered or given away in violation of law, or where persons are permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquors as a beverage, or where intoxicating liquors are kept for the purpose of sale, barter or delivery in violation of law, or a place where intoxicating liquors, bottles, glasses, kegs, pumps, bars and other property are kept and used in maintaining such place.”

A motion to quash this complaint, because it “is too indefinite and uncertain, and does not inform [712] said defendants or either of-them as to what they are called upon to plead to, or defend against,” was overruled by the court. The court erred in so doing.

While the complaint was in the language of the statute, which separates several offenses therein named by the disjunctive “or,” still it is well settled that such a pleading is not sufficient. The defendant is entitled to be informed just what is charged against him, and a complaint that he did one thing, or another, or still'another, lacks certainty. In this case, 'from the complaint, no one could tell whether the defendants were being charged with maintaining a place where persons are permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking intoxicating, liquors as a beverage, or whether they were being prosecuted for maintaining a place where such liquors were kept for the purpose of sale, barter or delivery in violation of law. It is true, the several acts enumerated in the section referred to might be joined in one complaint, but they must be charged cumulatively by the conjunction “and.” (The State v. Schweiter, 27 Kan. 499 ; 10 Encyc. Pl. & Pr. 536.)

The judgment of the district court will be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

All the Justices concurring.

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

State v. Seeger, 70 P. 599, 65 Kan. 711, 1902 Kan. LEXIS 119 (kan 1902).

70 P. 599 (State v. Seeger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Davis v. State
Court of Appeals of Kansas, 2021
State v. Dunn
Supreme Court of Kansas, 2016
State v. Woods
563 P.2d 1061 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1977)
State v. Kamen
203 P.2d 176 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1949)
Territory of Hawaii v. Tamashiro
37 Haw. 552 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1947)
State v. Douglas
260 P. 655 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1927)
State v. Cochran
250 P. 1071 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1926)
Young v. State
124 N.E. 679 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1919)
State v. Meyer
146 P. 1007 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1915)
State v. Johnson
116 P. 210 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1911)
State v. Labore
103 P. 106 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1909)