State v. Smithhisler

189 P. 135, 106 Kan. 587, 1920 Kan. LEXIS 609
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedApril 10, 1920
DocketNo. 22,465
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 189 P. 135 (State v. Smithhisler) 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. Smithhisler, 189 P. 135, 106 Kan. 587, 1920 Kan. LEXIS 609 (kan 1920).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Marshall, J.:

This action was brought by the plaintiff under the intoxicating liquor law to enjoin the defendants from maintaining a nuisance. A temporary injunction was granted, and from the order granting that injunction the defendants appeal. Their contention is that the evidence showed that the place was closed at the time the action was commenced, and had been closed for some days prior thereto; and that therefore no injunction should have been granted. The evidence showed that the defendants had sold Jamaica ginger, Wine of Life, Beef, Wine and Iron, Hostetter’s Bitters, etc., and that these articles had been sold by the defendants for a long time prior to the commencement of this action, and up to within a very few days of that time. No question is raised concerning the intoxicating character of the articles sold.

The cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses developed that the defendant had stated that he had sold the place and had closed it before the action was commenced. After continued sales of intoxicating liquor extending over a period of [588]*588months, an injunction cannot be avoided by ceasing to sell such liquors a few days before an action for an injunction is commenced. It is an easy matter to sell intoxicating liquors for a time and, when a storm is brewing, cease such sales and close the place until the storm has passed by, and then resume the sale of such liquors, and repeat that operation until the state is successful in getting the place closed.

The evidence was sufficient to justify the court in granting a temporary injunction.

The judgment is affirmed.

Porter, J., dissents.

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

Related

Curlee v. State ex rel. Edmondson
1957 OK 72 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1957)
State v. Samuels
175 P.2d 104 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1946)
State ex rel. McGriff v. Lutsch
25 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 152 (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
189 P. 135, 106 Kan. 587, 1920 Kan. LEXIS 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smithhisler-kan-1920.