State v. Glass

Citations

• 99 Kan. 159
• 160 P. 1145

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Liquor Nuisance — Abatement — State Proper Plaintiff — Petition Properly Signed. The state of Kansas is the plaintiff in an action to abate an intoxicating liquor nuisance, and it is not necessary that the petition show in the title that the action is prosecuted on the relation of any person or officer. The petition is properly signed.</p> <p>2. Same — Abatement—Sufficient Petition. In an action to abate a liquor nuisance, a cause of action was stated in a petition which alleged that at the place described a nuisance, as defined in the statute, was maintained with the knowledge, permission and consent of the defendants, who owned the property.</p> <p>3. Same — Sufficient Evidence. . The evidence was sufficient to warrant the judgment rendered.</p> <p>4. Same — Finding—Evidence. The finding of the court that the defendants had knowledge of the unlawful use of their premises was sustained by the evidence.</p> <p>5. Same — Injunction Against Owner of Premises. An injunction will lie against the owner of premises who knowingly permits a nuisance to be maintained thereon.</p> <p>6. Sam:e — Amendment to Petition — Additional Attorney’s Fees — Judicial Discretion. The granting of permission to amend a petition so as to ask for additional attorney’s fees is within the sound discretion of the trial court.</p> <p>7. Same — Value of Attorney’s Service — Proof. Attorney’s fees may be allowed without proof of the value of services rendered, where the services were rendered in the presence of the court.</p> <p>8. Same — Abatement—Nature of Judgment. An injunction against maintaining a liquor nuisance should be broad enough to preclude every possibility of the continuation or reopening of the nuisance by the persons enjoined or by anyone acting for, by, through or under them, or either of them, or with their permission.</p>