¶1(dissenting): It is an elementary rule of law that penal statutes must be construed strictly. (State v. Chapman, 33 Kan. 134, 5 Pac. 768.) Nothing may be added to them by inference or intendment. (Bagley Investment Co. v. Merrick, 122 Kan. 734, 735, 253 Pac. 562, and citations.) To say that a theft of merchandise from a baggage truck standing on the platform of a railway station is a larceny in a railway depot or station home seems erroneous in two aspects,, first, a baggage truck is neither a depot nor a station house; and second, the decision of the majority completely ignores the settled rule of this court and of courts in general that a penal statute should be strictly construed and is not to be enlarged by argument, deduction or interpretation, although the court may think the legislature should have made it more comprehensive. (59 C. J. 1113-1117.) I therefore dissent.
151 Kan. 788
In re Brenner
Decided April 6, 1940
Supreme Court of Kansas · decided 1940-04-06
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 1972
8 state decisions
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
““. . . that a defendant who plead guilty to stealing merchandise ‘from a baggage truck standing on the platform’ of a railroad station ‘within three feet of the wall of said station and under the canopy of said station extending over said platform’ was properly charged, convicted and sentenced under the provisions of section 21-1909, G. S. 1935, which provides the penalty for larceny ‘committed in any railway depot, station house/ etc.” (Syl.) (Emphasis supplied.)”
quoted by 1 later decision, including Kansas v. Scott
Relies on State v. Chapman · Elmer F. Bagley Investment Co. v. Merrick
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1940-04-06
View the full empirical analysis of this case →