Volume 189 — Kansas Reports

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — <italic>Certainty and Definiteness of Criminal</italic> <italic>Statute — Due Process.</italic> A criminal statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, lacks the first essential of due process of law. 2. SAME — <italic>Vague Statute — Failure to Inform Accused — Applicable</italic> <italic>Test — Due Process of Law.</italic> Whether a statute is vague and indefinite and therefore fails to inform an accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him as required by section ten of the bill of rights of the constitution of Kansas, is determined by the test applicable to whether the statute violates<page_number>Page 404</page_number> due process of law under the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States. 3. CRIMINAL LAW — <italic>Allegations Under Void Statute — Effect.</italic> Allegations purporting to charge a public offense in a complaint or information do not serve to validate an offense intended to be charged under a statute void on its face, since it is the statute, not the accusation under it, that must prescribe the rule to govern conduct and warn against transgression. 4. STATUTES — <italic>Statutes Adopted From Other States —</italic> <italic>Construction.</italic> The rule that the construction of a statute by the courts of one state before its adoption by another state is controlling, does not apply in determining the constitutionality of the statute by courts of the adopting state. The construction of a statute is not to be confused with the duty of determining its validity when measured by constitutional guarantees. 5. CRIMINAL LAW — <italic>Strict Construction — Construction as to</italic> <italic>Exceptions.</italic> The rule of strict construction is to be applied to a criminal statute, and courts should not extend it to embrace acts or conduct not clearly included within its prohibitions, and exceptions in such a statute are construed liberally in favor of a person charged with a violation thereof. 6. STATUTES — <italic>Age Does Not Lend Validity.</italic> Age does not invest a statute with constitutional validity, neither does it rob it of such validity. 7. SAME — <italic>Sunday Closing Law — Statutes Construed.</italic> G.S. 1949, <cross_reference>21-955</cross_reference> and <cross_reference>21-956</cross_reference>, are examined and construed, and it is <italic>held:</italic> Section <cross_reference>21-956</cross_reference> is an exception to Section <cross_reference>21-955</cross_reference>, and that in determining the offense intended to be proscribed <cross_reference>21-956</cross_reference> has precisely the same meaning as if it were appropriately incorporated in <cross_reference>21-955</cross_reference>, and constitutes an integral part of the offense as defined. 8. SAME — <italic>Sunday Closing Law — Statutes Vague and Indefinite —</italic> <italic>Validity.</italic> The statute, as construed in the preceding paragraph, is further examined and, as more fully set forth in the opinion, is <italic>held</italic> to be so vague, indefinite and uncertain that it fails to provide a reasonable definite standard of guilt to apprise the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation against him in violation of section ten of the bill of rights of the constitution of Kansas, and the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. OUSTER — <italic>Failure to File Answer Within Time — Default</italic> <italic>Judgment.</italic> The record is examined in an ouster action under G.S. 1949, <cross_reference>60-1609</cross_reference> to <cross_reference>60-1624</cross_reference> and it is found that defendant had refused to abide by the provisions of the statute and had given the impression of working for delay, and that it can not be found to be error for the district court to enter a judgment by default against the defendant who failed to file answer within time. 2. SAME — <italic>Nature of Action — Default Judgment Without Evidence.</italic> The nature of the civil action of ouster which is in the nature of an action for summary quo warranto is considered and it is <italic>held</italic> that the court had power and jurisdiction to enter judgment against a defaulting defendant without requiring the introduction of evidence. 3. SAME — <italic>Judgment by Default Without Evidence — No Abuse of</italic> <italic>Discretion.</italic> The procedure in the above action is considered and it is <italic>held</italic> that the district court, under all the circumstances, was not guilty of an abuse of discretion.