*1 79$ “By is section an act of which fiscal functions which should be 186d, provided maintained order. For the exact reasons stated, bonds, limited in a he is 'shall our conclusion that the bond sum, provision penal upon appellant shall be de- is definite which which relies by or absolving officer termined and fixed fails of sure- ineffective approve ty liability. is duty it The trial court did officers whose predicate seen that the statu- thus be its the reasons we bond.’ It will really advanced, is a tory obligation, which result reached public offi- obligation proper the contract one. faithfully
cials, will officer The judgment is affirmed. office, discharge the duties occa- pay the loss surety else the will All concur. exceed sum thereby, not to
sioned no author-
fixed bond. We limitation.”
ity any contract
n n n n n 5jC
“We that the bond light executed of the statutes
referred to and should be read in con- therewith,
nection
limitation
the bond in derogation of the statutory GIBSON PRODUCTS COMPANY OF BOWL
binding
city.
as to the
GREEN,
KY.,
ING
Jack R. Over
city having
And
sustained
the loss
turf and
by
ascertained
commissioner
Appellants,
Jack’s Discount
adjudged by the
and this
lower
v.
loss
resulting from
failure
LOWE,
official,
principal,
public
faithfully
Potter, Jr.,
office,
discharge the duties of the
Attorney,
Appellees.
surety is liable.” Id.
607,
was mentioned with
It purpose is obvious that the question bond in tois assure faithful
payment public appropriate agency public revenues collected sheriff. permit
To a built-in “self-destruct” clause surety’s liability defeat a on such a bond salutary purpose
would frustrate the Moreover,
the bond. to allow such an
escape retrospectively applied clause to be a judicial
after determination of when and obligee a “dishonest discovered
if render chaotic
act or omission” would *2 E. David English and Charles John Harlin, Parker,
Cole, & Lucas Ricketts, Green, English, appellants. Bowling for Potter, Jr., Lowe, Green, Bowling appellees. CULLEN, Commissioner.
Alleging various of unconstitu- tionality Sunday Closing 436.160, Com- Gibson Products Green, Bowling Ky., Inc. pany of and Jack R. Overturf Discount Jack’s brought the Commonwealth’s County Attorney asking court de- County, Warren or to clare the law unconstitutional plain- enforcement of the law time as enforcement uni- tiffs until such be The circuit form all offenders. ac- court entered on the did not state a claim on which relief could granted. plaintiffs appeal.
As to the of unconsti agree that tutionality of the law we itself claim did state first granted. which relief could be unconstitutionality enforcement, lack of Court, is no merit in the prior become There Circuit indict- void. ground, because the law is settled several other well a statute in- unenforcement will render olation of trial; operative. Am.Jur., hearing sec. been continued without and, variously p. 513, p. that other 524. The second establishments *3 stores, grounds drug third that statute estab- denominated as pharmacies, were the groceries, washes, religion exceptions super-markets that the in and lished and car many discriminatory. made it Those some of the statute which sell of the same types rejected plaintiffs, in of grounds were Commonwealth v. merchandise as are Louisville, Department openly permitted Arlan’s of do Store to business usual 708, Sunday, plaintiffs on and jointly we continue and Ky., 357 S.W.2d to which severally, ground that state that the to adhere. The fourth of enforcement against unlawfully That vagueness. the statute KRS 436.160 them is void rejected Department discriminatory rights in Arlan’s and violates their Commonwealth, Ky., Store of Louisville under the Amendment to Fourteenth Constitution, again 369 in Commonwealth United States and S.W.2d consti- Department Stores, (this power Inc., arbitrary Rink’s tutes the exercise of in day decided). Kentucky violation 2 of Section of the
Constitution.” toAs discrimination in enforce
ment, foregoing It is our complaint asserted two pleading a sufficient constitute for relief. One that there was unlaw aof claim of discrimination. ful discrimination of enforcement Sunday law, 436.160(1) no-work KRS requirements proof The of sus to plaintiff merchants but nonen- tain a claim of discrimination in the en Sunday no-hunting forcement of the Sunday Closing forcement of Law are 436.160(6) against sportsmen. We set forth in of Ashland v. ground. in this merit Reasonable point 421. there S.W.2d As equal permissible classification under the out, only and fla “obvious protection Am.Jur.2d, clause. See 16 Con grant” In case that warrants relief. sub stitutional pp 859 to 862. stance, a pattern the claimant must show hunters, We think mer discrimination, or course of of action chandising hunting, properly are of merely an isolated instance nor some classes, such so designated different escaping prosecution. few offenders statute, can be treated there equal protection no denial of the en holding only We are above-quot- relating forcement of the of the law one ed paragraph of is a suffi- classes but not the other. Of course cient pleading. It will remain for the hunting should be enforced long law so as plaintiffs meet books, remains on statute proof. remedy for nonenforcement is abate ment of enforcement of laws. other In his order the com plaint stated that the court discrimina- other judicial knowledge that indictments of language in the is set forth in this 10 other violating businesses for the Sun complaint: day Closing presently pending were plaintiffs
“VI. The while being state that “there no discrimination they severally have been these indicted Plaintiffs.” We not con do olations of the Law and sider this a sufficient refutation of the al legation their matters have been docketed that indictments September, term of the other merchants had been continued. the Fourteenth Amendment indictments violations of continuance Indefinite States and section ele- the United Constitution was one offenders In either Constitution. to exist discrimination found valid, violation, if could Heck’s, Inc., Ky., 407 such claimed case City of Ashland v. been and should raised as defense 421. Instead, prosecution. cases in both judgment is with directions reversed con- recognizing claimed violations conformity proceedings in for further equitable rights as the basis for stitutional opinion. this dangerous precedents relief are hinderance of law enforcement. except C. All concur J- point out that in this closing, In I would *4 duly sought elect Attorney qualified Commonwealth’s (dis- Chief Justice Attorney prosecuting from senting). indictments, prevent nothing appears to but pro appointing a tern judge from majority opinion in its agree I both the should Sunday Closing Law is conclusion at term or absent constitutional, respectfully named officers dissent I Shelton of term. KRS 69.060. majority opinion so much of the from Ky. 6 S.W.2d Commonwealth, 224 may be prosecutors which holds Miller, S. 1094; Wells prosecuting. My reasons restrained from on absence 69.310 41. See KRS dissent W.2d previously been stated. See majority opinion attorney. The county Ashland v. way restrains opinion and The Heck S.W.2d 421. involved. holding trial of the indictments on claimed
majority here are based