Imágenes de páginas

gaged with and aided a person in vio- ! icating liquors were kept in the freight depot lation of the law against the sale of intoxicating of the defendant Railway Company wbich liquors by keeping them in its warehouse for

were owned by Con Creeden and were intended bim, cannot defeat a proceeding to condemn to be sold by bin in violation of law. A them and escape the judgment of the law, on the search warrant was issued and six separate ground that it has a lien upon the liquors for boxes containing in all about twenty-eight and freight (October 18, 1889.)

three-fourths gallons of wbiskey were found in

such depot and seized. The Railway ComIsland & Pacitic Railway Company from offense charged in the information; ibat the a judgment of the District Court of Polk liquors were sbipped from points without the County condemping to destruction certain State into the State, and were not subject to liquors in its possession and ordering it to pay seizure; that defendant beld the liquors simply the costs of the proceeding: Affirmed. as a common carrier baving a lien thereon for

An information was tiled in the office of a freight charges, and denied that the liquors justice of the peace alleying that certain intox- / were kept for sale in violation of law.

[ocr errors]

tution. Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623 (31 L. ed.

Transportation prohibited. 205); Re floover, 30 Fed. Rep. 51.

The probibition may be supported upon the The words “any other person," in Iowa Code ground that per se it has a deleterious effect upon $ 1553, following a specification of certain compegood order and the peace, comfort and morals of nies and other carriers and their agents, etc., who the people of the State. Pearson v. International are prohibited from transporting intoxicating li. Distillery, 72 Iowa, 348.

quors without a certificate, mean simply other per. A State has the right to prohibit, restrict or reg- sons of like kind or in like employment with those ulate all sale and traffic in intoxic ting liquors specified. State v. Campbell, 76 Iowa, 122. within the State; and to inflict penalties for their

One employed to transport goods sold is a carrier manufacture and sale, and provide regulations for for hire, and his driver is required to have a certifthe abatement of property used for such forbid- cate for transporting intoxicating liquors, under den purposes. Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1 (32 L. this section. Ibid. ed. 316), 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 232; Kohn v. Melcher, A statute probibiting the manufacture of intox29 Fed. Rep. 433; State v. Kane, 3 New Eng. Rep. cating liquor for exportation from the State is val143, 15 R. I. 395; Groesch v. State, 42 Ind. 547; -tate id. Pearson v. International Distillery, 72 Iowa, 348. V. Alimond, 2 Houst. (Del.) 612; Er parte Campbell,

Iowa Code, $ 1555, probibiting the sale of wine 74 Cal. 20; State v. Schweiter, 27 Kan. 499; Mugler v. made from fruits grown outside the State, but perKansas, 123 U. S. 6:23 (31 L. ed. 205).

mitting the sale of that made from fruits grown in The power to make laws regulating or prohibit the State, is constitutional, not being a regulation ing the sule of intoxicating liquors is undoubtedly of commerce, por an invasion of the privileges within the police power of the State or nation, and immunities” of the citizens of another Stato. Cooley, Const. Lim. 720; United States v. Nelson, State v. Stucker, 58 Iowa, 496. 29 Fed. Rep. 202; Com. v. Kendall, 12 Cush. 414; Com. Defendant must show that the wine sold was made v. Clapp, 5 Gray, 97; Santo v. State, 2 Iowa, 202; from domestic fruits. State V. Miller, 53 Iowan State v. Wheeler, 25 Conn. 290; People v. Huwley, 3 84. Mich. 330; Jones v. People, 14 NI. 196; State v. Prescott, 27 Vt. 194; Territory v. O'Connor, 3 L. R. A.

Imported liquorso 357, 5 Dak. 397; State v. Wright, 14 Or. 365.

It is within the police power of the State to pro- The United States Supreme Court decided on bibit tbe giving away of intoxicating liquor, in a April 28, 1890, in the case of Leisy v. Hardin, gen. social or other manner, to one who at the time is erally known as the "Original Package Case," that already visibly intoxicated, although he be a friend. in the absence of Congressional permission a State Altenburg v. Com. 4 L. R. A. 513, 126 Pa. 602. has no right to interfere with the sale by an im

The Legislature has authority absolutely to pro. porter of intoxicating liquors, imported from anhibit "drinking saloons" or saloons for the purpose other State, in the original packages in which they of carrying on the liquor trathc; and to regulate were imported, as such action would infringe upon the mode, manner and circumstances in which they the right of Congress to regulate commerce (134 U. shall be conducted anu carried on, and to surround S. —, 33 L. ed. --). Prior to that time the Iowa the right with such conditions, restrictions and court had made the following decisions: limitations as may appear judicious. Ex parte Sales of intoxicating liquors in the original packBeli, 24 Tex. App. 428.

ages in which they were received could be and Iowa Laws 1878, chap. 119, probibiting sale of were prohibited. State v. Bowman (Iowa) 43 N. W. malt or vinous liquors within two miles of the cor- Rep. 302; Collins v. Hills, 3 L. R. A. 110, 77 Iowa porate limits of any municipality, is constitutional. 181. State v. Shroeder, 51 lowa, 197.

After reaching their destination, they are subject Ark. Act of March 2, 1875, “to prevent the to the restrictions of the Jowa statute applicable to sale or giving away of vinous, spirituous or intoxi- liquors kept for use as a beverage. State v. Zimcating liquors within three miles of any academy, merman (Iowa) 43 N. W. Rep. 458. college or university," is constitutional (Boyd v. Liquors imported by express, and held by the Bryant, 35 Ark. 69, 37 Am. Rep. 6); in Tennessee company as agent for the consignor, to be deliv. within four miles State v. Tarver, 11 Lea, 658; Til- ered to the consignee upon payment of the purlery v. State, 10 Lea, 35; Harney v. State, 8 Lea, 113); chase price, are subject to be seized and destroyed in Rhode Island within 100 feet of any public school. as contraband property, in a proceeding against Re Liquor Locations, 13 R. I. 733.

the liquors. It is wbolly immaterial whether the Cal. Code, $ 17, making it a misdemeanor to sell, officers of the express company know the characgive away or expose for sale, intoxicating liquor ter of the property or the uses to which it is to be within two miles of the State prison or within one put; and where the company voluntarily appears mile of the insane asylum or of the University of in the proceeding and claims the liquors, the costs California or in the state capitol grounds, is yalid. may properly be taxed against ite State v. U.S. Ex parte McClain, 61 Cal. 436, 44 Am. Rep. 554. Exp. Co. 70 Iowa, 271.

The justice entered a judgment condemning on the question was that of the Company's the liquors and taxing the costs to the Rail. freigbt agent and freight-house foreman. The way Company, whereupon it appealed to the former testified as follows: district court.

“When goods are received as these were, it In that court it was admitted that the pack is customary for the Company to notify the ages were shipped as stated in the answer; that consignee by postal card tbrough the governupon their arrival they were taken into the ment postoffice. We deliver freight as soon as Company's freight warebouse, the consignee we can. In the mean time we bold it in the was potified, and they remained in the ware Company's freight house. We give the conhouse until seized under the warrant issued in signee notice and bold the goods to wait thrir this case. That payment of the freight cbarges sevding for them, but where the drayman bas was demanded of the officer making the seiz- an order from the consignee authorizing him

to receipt for the goods, we deliver directly There was nothing to show why the pack- from the depot or sometimes from the car. I ages were left at the Company's depot so long bave no personal knowledge of any other shipas they were, and the only evidence bearing ments than these in question from the same


The mere giving an order for liquors to an agent, The town bas no authority to prohibit any liqof a seller, residing in another State, subject to the uors but those prohibited by the statutes. Cantril approval or disapproval of his principal, does not v. Sainer, 59 Iowa, 26. fix the place of contract, in Iowa, within the meaning An ordinance entitled "regulating the use and of Rev., & 1571, making payment for liquors sold,etc., sale" and in substance being entirely prohibited is to be without consideration. Otherwise as to the unconstitutional (Ibid); or it may be taken away sale for which the agent had power to contract, by the town ordinance (Columbus City v. Cutcomp, and intended by the seller to aid the purchaser to 61 Iowa, 672); and it may be revoked for a single violute the liquor law. Tegler v. Shipman, 33 Iowa, unlawful sale. Hildreth v. Crawford, 65 Iowa, 339. 194.

For the violation of an ordinance under which a Statutes construed.

liquor license was granted, the city may cause the The statute expressly requires courts and jurors license to be forfeited. Ottumwa v. Schaub, 52 to construe its provisions so as to prevent evasion, Iowa, 515. and so as to cover the act of giving as well as sell

A licensed liquor dealer must act in good faith ing. State v. Reinhartz, 69 Iowa, 224.

in his sales, but is not liable, if his purchaser enterThe Iowa laws forbidding the sale of intoxicating tains a secret purpose to use the liquor for unlawliquors are applicable to all persons irrespective of ful purpose. Taylor v. Pickett, 52 Iowa, 467. their residence, or of the manner or vessels in

Permits to pharmacists. which the liquors are put up. Leisey v. Hardin (Iowa) 43 N. W. Rep. 188, but see S. C. 134 U.S. —,33 Code, 8 1556, does not apply to a physician who L. ed.

treats a person professionally who is injured while The proviso in Ala. Act of February 23, 1881, pro- intoxicated. Sansom v. Greonough, 55 Iown, 127. bibiting the sale of liquor, except wine raised from To give a right of action under Code, $ 1557, the grapes grown in Alabama, being a discrimination liquor sold must contribute to the intoxication by against foreign wines, is unconstitutional, Mc- which the wife is injured. Welch v. Jugenheimer, Creary v. State, 73 Ala. 480.

56 Iowa, 11. But the Act of March 1, 1881, prohibiting the sale Iowa Laws 1880, chap. 75, regulating the sale of of intoxicating liquors, but providing that it shall liquor by apothecaries, and providing a somewhat not prevent the sale of domestic wines manufac different penalty for an unlawful sale than Iowa tured from grapes grown in the State, is valid in Code, title ll, chap. 6, was held not to repeal the Its prohibitory section. Powell v. State, 69 Ala. 10. latter. State v. Mercer, 58 luwa, 182.

Under the Iowa statute, providing that the words The Laws of 1884, chap. 143, providing additional "intoxicating liquors" as used therein shall be con- penalties for illegal sales of liquore, is not repug. strued to mean "alcohol, wine, beer, spirituous, pant to Const., art. 3, $ 29, which provides that vinuous and malt liquors and all intoxicating li- every Act sball embrace but one subject," etc.; quors whatever," liquor containing alcohol is, as a nor is it in confiict with art. 1, 86, which declares matter of law, intoxicating, however much it may that "all laws of a general pature shall have a uni. be diluted, and regardless of the fact that the form operation." Martin v. Blattner, 68 Iowa, 286. quantity drunk at any one time would not produce It is a general prohibitory law and repeals by imintoxication. State v. Intoxicating Liquors, 2 L. plication earlier statutes excepting pharmacists R. A. 408, 76 Iowa, 243.

from their operation. State v. Bissell, 67 Iowa, 616.

A person who holds a permit to manufacture or Special licenses for sale.

sell intoxicating liquors, and who fails to make reIowa Code, 88 1523, 1526, wbich limit the giving of turn to the county auditor on the last Saturday of licenses to sell and buy intoxicating liquors to cer- each month, or within five days thereafter, renders tain classes of citizens for certain purposes, do not himself and bondsmen liable for the penalty previolate the Federal Constitution. Kohn v. Melcher, scribed by Laws 1884, chap. 143, 88. State v. Mc29 Fed. Rep. 433.

Entee, 68 Iowa, 381. Municipal corporations under Iowa Law 1868, As to druggists, physicians and pharmacists in chap. 154, § 2, may license their sale. Keokuk v. other States, see People v. Hinchman (Mich.) 4 L. Dressell, 47 Iowa, 597.

R. A. 707; Battle v. State, 51 Ark. 97; State v. Pierce, The Acts authorizing all towns and cities incor- 26 Kan. 777; Intoxicating Liquor Cases, 25 Kan. 751; porated under special charters to regulate and pro- Sarrls v. Com. 83 Ky. 327; Com, v. Minor, 10 bibit the sale of intoxicating liquors not prohibited Ky. L. Rep. 1008, 11 8. W. Rep. 472; Carrington v. by state law, are constitutional. State v. King, 37 Com. 78 Ky. 83; Wright v. People, 101 Ill. 126; State Iowa, 462.

v. Scott, 2 West. Rep. 514, 20 Mo. App. 418; State v. Wbere the town prohibited the sale of liquors Roller, 77 Mo. 1:0; State v. Shaw, 58 N. H. 72; State which it had authority to do, and also others which v. McBrayer, 98 N. C. 619; The Druggist Cases, 85 it had no power to probibit, the ordinance may be Tenn. 449; Boone v. State, 10 Tex. App. 418; State v. enforced as to the former. Eldora v. Burlingame, Thompson, 20 W. Va. 674; State v. Cox, 23 W. Van 62 Iowa, 32.

797; Miles v. State, 5 W. Va. 524.

consignors to Con Creeden. I have not ex- | up the expense bills wben they present an order amined the books to determine as to others. from the consignee, or if we know the expressThere may bave been others but I did not men are responsible, and they call for the goods, look up the records to see. Knowing I was we would deliver them, especially if they have going to be inquired of in regard to these ship- a bill of lading. Before this seizure, I think ments, I consulted the books and now bave a there was but one package at a time there for recollection in regard to them. I was not the Con Creeden. It always came in single pack. person who demanded the freight of the ages. These packages came singly, but he did otlicer.

not call for them.” The latter testified: “I never

saw Con A jury baving been waived, the court entered Creeden at the freight house in my life. There judgment condemning the liquors and directing has been freight taken from there cousigned to the Company to pay the costs; whereupon it him before the time of this seizure. The express- appealed to ihis court. man came and got goods, receipted for them Messrs. Thomas S. Wright and George and paid the freight bills. It is customary to E. McCoughan, for appellant: deliver freight to all transfer lines that take The defendant, a common carrier, was bound

Remedy by criminal prosecution.

Intoxicating liquors seized under proceedings The Iowa Revision, 85110, does not attempt any

for their forfeiture are not subject to replevin. restrictions upon subsequent legislation, and the Fries v. Porch, 49 Iowa, 351. Act of 1870, chap. 69, applies to convictions for keeping liquor nuisances. State v. Winstrand, 37

Judgment lien for violation of Liquor Law. Iowa, 110.

The Iowa Laws of 1862, chap. 47, $ 3, making a One who keeps liquor which he intends shall be judgment for violation of the Liquor Law a lien on sold lawfully is not liable for a sale made without the property of a third person, is constitutional. his knowledge. State v. Hayes, 67 Iowa, 27.

Polk Co. v. Hierb, 37 Iowa, 561. Treating a drunken person is the offense of dis- Property which the owuer knows is used for the posing of liquor to an intoxicated person. State v. unlawful sale of liquors is subject to the lien of a Hubbard, 60 Iowa, 406.

judgment against the occupant for any unlawful Where a pint of whiskey was sold to a stranger sale, although the owner did not know of or conon his mere statement that he wanted it for medi- sent to the particular sales relied on. Wing v. cine, the finding that it was sold as a beverage is Benham, 76 Iowa, 17. Justined. State v. Knowles, 57 Iowa, 669.

To charge the premises with the lien it must be An indictment charging unlawful sale of whiskey shown that the owner consented to their unlawful is not supported by proof of sale of other liquors. use. Meyers v. Kirt, 57 Iowa, 421. State v. Hesner, 55 Iowa, 494.

To establish the lien, consent of the owner need An indictment charging in one count the kecp- not be shown by any atlirmative act. Loan v. ing of liquors with intent to sell contrary to law, Etzel. 62 Iowa, 429. and in another count the unlawful sale, is not bad

Where different judgments were rendered upon for duplicity, State v. Howorth, 70 Iowa, 157.

separate trials against the several defendants, An information charging an illegal sale with a plaintiff must elect upon which he would rely as a * view to having the permit revoked (Code, $ 1635) is lien upon the premises where the sale took place. not a criminal proceeding, and a bond to supersede Putney v. O'Brien, 53 Iowa, 117. the judgment appealed from may be given. State

The lien given by Iowa Code, $ 1558, for fines and v. Schmidtz, 65 Iowa, 556.

costs for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors, Unlawful intent may be presumed from the fact upon the property occupied for that purpose, is of their sale in violation of law. State v. Sartori, 55 not defeated by a conveyance pending a suit to enIowa, 340.

force the lien. McClure v. Branitf, 75 Iowa, 38. Where the sale of intoxicating liquors is a crime

Keeping liquor nuisance. under the Prohibitory Law, the purchaser is not a participant in the crime, and he cannot excuse

Under Iowa Code, 8: 1542, 1543, one making a sale bimself from testifying as to such purchases made of liquor for other purposes than that authorized by him, on the ground that his testimony would by his permit is guilty of keeping a liquor nuisance; tend to criminate himself. Wakeman v. Chambers, and the fact that he thus sells is evidence of the in. 69 Iowa, 169.

tent with which he keeps such liquors. State v. One indicted for a third offense may be convicted Webber, 76 Iowa, 686. of a first offense. State v. Gaffeny, 66 Iowa, 262.

Where drunkenness, quarreling and breaches of A conviction of selling ale, beer and wine with the peace are carried on, though but once, it is a out license is not invalidated by the fact that the nuisance. State v. Pierce, 65 lowa, 85. sale of ale is prohibited by state law. Keokuk v.

An information charging a defendant with keep. Dressell, 47 Iowa, 597.

ing intoxicating liquors "for the purpose of sale" The Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting is sufficient under Iowa Code, & 1542, which uses the the sale of beer, submitted to the people June 27, words “ with intent to sell.” State v. Mohr, 53 1882, not having been lawfully adopted, no one Iowa, 261. could be convicted of a sale thereof, under Iowa

In an indictment under Code, 8 15:3, for the pui. Code, $ 40922.

sance of selling liquors, it is not necessary to allege A party, to justify the act or giving intoxicating that it is the second offense. State v. Howorth, 70 liquors to a minor, must show that the order was Iowa, 157. in writing. State v. Coenan, 48 Iowa, 567.

Proceedings for seizure of intoxicating liquorg

under Iowa Code, & 1544. See Weir v. Alen, 47 Seizure of liquors.

Iowa, 482. The compensation which a sheriff is entitled to In Iowa Code, $ 1550, providing that all sales, liens, receive for executing a warrant for the seizure of pledges, etc., made on account of intoxicating liqintoxicating liquors is $2,-the fee fixed by Laws uors, shall be void, the word “lien" does not include 188%, chap. 94, $ 4, for serving all warrants. Section the lien of a judgment. Smith v. Leddy, 50 Iowa, 8807 stands repealed as to sheriffs, but remains good 112. As te constables and other officers. Painter v. Polk A fine of $1,000 was held not excessive for nuiCo. 70 Iowa, 596,

dance in the illegal sale of liquors, where defend. to receive and carry the packages when offered McClain's Code, ed. 1888, $ 3364(2177); Winne to it at Rock Island. They were properly v. Illinois Cent. Ř. Co. 31 Iowa, 583; Chicago marked and labeled.

& 8. W. R. Co. v. Northwestern Union Packet McClain's Code, ed. 1888, § 2412.

Co. 38 Iowa, 377. It could not lawfully refuse to carry the 2. If the goods were unclaimed for six goods, and no statute of Iowa could be relied months and the charges unpaid, it could sell on to justify such refusal.

them; and, after reimbursing itself for its lien Boroian v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 125 U. S. and costs, deposit the money with the county 500 (31 L. ed. 719). See Hutchinson, Carr. $ 47; treasurer, through whom it was liable eventuCollins v. Hills, 3 L. R. A. 110, 77 Iowa, 281. ally to pass into the school fund.

Having received and carried the goods, the McClain's Code, SS 3365, 3369 (2178, 2182). law conferred upon the defendant certain It might and it became its duty to store the rights with relation to them. These were: goods after a reasonable time.

1. A lien upon them for their transportation, Angle v. Mississippi & Y. R. Co. 18 Iowa, and also for their storage, if it was compelled 555. to store them.

The law contemplated that these liquors,

ants appeared to have flagrantly violated the law, State v. Salts, 77 Iowa, 193; State v. Webber, 76 luwa, without much regard for its regulations. State v. 686. Aulman, 76 Iowa, 6:24.

Where he claimed on the trial that the sales were

made by his clerk, evidence that the business was Abatement of liquor nuisance.

conducted under bis supervision, and was drunk on Under Iowa Acts, 20 Gen. Assem. chap. 143, 12, the premises, shows knowledge on his part. Eland 21 Gen. Assem. chap. 66, $$ 1, 2, a place where wood v. Price, 75 Iowa, 228. liquor has been illegally sold may be abated. El- As to abatement of liquor nuisance in other wood v, Price, 75 Iowa, 228.

States, see Streeter v. People, 69 11. 595; Duke v. Under Iowa Laws 1886, p. 82, providing for the Marston, 6 New Eng. Rep. 919, 64 N. H. 603. abatement of a liquor nuisance by the seizure and

In Kansas it is a criminal, and not a civil, prodestruction of the liquor and the removal of all ar- ceeding. State v. Crawford, 28 Kan. 743. ticles used in the business on the premises, when

A decree for injunction and the abatement of a the nuisance is established, the court should pro- saloon nuisance, obtained by a citizen of a county, vide for its abatement McClure v. Branisl, 75 is a bar to a suit by another citizen of the same Iowa, 38.

county in the absence of anything to show why Owners of premises which were fitted up with a

such first decree remains unenforced. See Dickinbar and other appliances for the sale of drinks, and son v. Eichorn (Iowa) 6 L. R. A. 721 and note. on which the evidence showed that a saloon nuisance had been permitted to exist, will be enjoined

Remedy by injunction. from maintaining the nuisance, although they re- A statute declaring a building where liquore are side in another place, where they made no showing unlawfully sold a nuisance and allowing it to be that they acted in good faith in leasing the proper- enjoined by a citizen of the county, is not a viola. ty. State v. Douglass, 75 Iowa, 432.

tion of the right of trial by jury. Littleton v. Fritz, Where the front room of defendant's building 65 Iowa, 488. was used as a liquor saloon, but other portions of Laws 1884, chap. 143, in providing that the nui. the building were occupied by his family, and a sance in a building or place where prohibited liquorg back room was used for a kitchen and also as a have been kept or sold may be enjoined, merely place for storing liquors, the back room was con- provides an additional remedy; and before a de. sidered an “appendage” to the saloon. State v. fendant can claim that he is about to be deprived Fertig, 70 Iowa, 272.

of his property without compensation, he must The method of abating nuisances kept in viola- show that such property was owned by him or tion of the Liquor Law, defined in Laws 1886, chap. those under whom he claims, and that it was used 66, was properly employed in cases which were for the sale of intoxicating liquors, prior to the enpending when the Statute was enacted, but not actment of the Statute of 1855. McLane v. Leicht, finally determined until afterwards. McLane v. 69 Iowa, 401. Bonn, 70 lowa, 75.2.

Where it was shown to have been voluntarily ! The abatement should be decreed, although de-abated before the commencement of the action infendant, who had for years maintained the nui-junction will not lie. Eckert v. David, 75 lowa, 302. sance, discontinued it four days before filing his A Methodist clergyman who settled in a town, answer. Halfman v. Spreen, 75 Iowa, 309.

under an appointment by the bishop for a year, is The Iowa statute providing that evidence of gen- a citizen, and may maintain an action to enjoin a eral reputation shall be admissible to prove the ex- liquor nuisance. Fuller v. McDonnell, 75 Iowa. 220. istence of such nuisance, and for the allowance of An allegation that the unlawful sale of liquors is an attorney's fee, is applicable to an action brought conducted with the owner's permission is equivaunder a former statute, but before the trial of lent to saying that it is done with his knowledge which it took effect. And it is admissible to show and consent; and a temporary injunction should isthe amount of attorneys' fees both in the state sue to restrain him from further permitting the courts and in the federal courts to which the ac- use of his building for such a purpose. Gray v. tion was removed. Farley v.O'Malley, 77 Iowa, 531. Stienes, 69 lowa, 124.

The Iowa Act of 1886, providing that pharmacists An adjudication, upon information, that defendalone sball have the right to permits to sell liquors ant was not guilty of the crime of selling intoxicafor medicinal purposes, though making no mention ting liquors contrary to law, is not an adjudication of the Code, 8 1526, abrogates a brewer's right to sell that he is not maintaining a nuisance, and is not a by virtue of a permit under that section. State v. bar to proceedings by injunction to restrain him Aulman, 76 Iowa, 624.

from continuing it. Martin v. Blattner, 68 Iowa, A registered pharmacist, permitted to sell liquors 286. for medicinal purposes under Iowa Laws 1886, chap. The lessor of a building used as a place for the 83, is guilty of maintaining a liquor nuisance under unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors becomes an the Code, & 1543, when he sells for other purposes. I aider and abettor in violating the law, and he is a properly marked and labeled, should be carried merce, in the constitutional sense, embraces and stored.

transportation only. McClain's Code, ed. 1888, & 2412; Laws, 22 See Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (32 L. ed. Ged, Assem, chap. 73, $7.

346), 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 232. If defendant was bound to receive and carry It is the duty of a common carrier to bar. the goods, it was equally bound to take care of monize its regulations and professions with the them and for carriage and care it was entitled law. to compensation. When received and wbile State v. U. 8. Erp. Co. 70 Iowa, 271; Milbeing carried the goods were lawfuliy articles of waukee Malt Extract Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & commerce, and no legal seizure could be made P.R. Co. 73 Iowa, 98. of ibem.

The Statute makes this whiskey subject to See Lall v. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 488 (24 L. ed. condemnation, if, at the time of seizure, it was 548).

owned or kept by anyone for sale in violation The articles seized and condemned were of law. articles of interstate commerce.

$ 1546. The Daniel Ball, 77 U. S. 10 Wall. 565 (19 It was in possession of the Railroad Company L. ed. 1002).

but was owned by either the consignor or the The goods do not lose their interstate com- consignee. If by the former then it was con: merce character because they are held by the tra band. carrier awaiting delivery.

Stute v. U. 8. Exp. Co. 70 Iowa, 271. See Gloucester Ferry Co, v. Pennsylvania, 114 If it was owned by the consignee it was held U.S. 203 (29 L. ed. 161); License Cases, 46 U. for unlawful sale, for he was engaged in that 8. 5 How. 575 (12 L. ed. 256).

business. These articles embarked in interstate commerce were still in transitu, so far as the rights Beck, J., delivered the opinion of the of i be consignor were concerned. They bau not court: been delivered to the consignee nor to bis agent, 1. The facts established by the undoubted but were in the bands of the defendant either as preponderance of the evidence are these: There carrier or warehouseman, and in either case was shipped from Rock Island, I'l., by tie were still subject to be recalled by the con Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Comsignors.

pany, consigned to defendant Cou Creeden, at O'Neil v. Garrett, 6 Iowa, 480; Grere v. Dun- Des Moines, six packages of whiskey, in sepaham, 60 lowa, 108.

rate shipments. The packages contained about Mr. J. A. Harvey, with Mr. John Y. five gallons each. Two were shipped on the Stone, Atty-Gen., for the State:

7th, and ove each on the 9th, 141h, 15th and At the time of the seizure, ibe duty of the 17th days of November. Each package was Railroad Company as a common carrier had received at the railroad freight depot at Des terminated.

Moines in two days after the date of its ship2 Kevt, Com. 602; Edwards, Bailm. pp. 515- ment. The charge on each package was 34 517, also pp. 284-286, 295, 296, 506; Angle v. cents. They were kept in the freiglit house or Mississippi & M. R. C0. 18 Iowa, 555. warebouse of the Company until taken upon

In this class of cases, the regulation of com. I the search-warrant issued in this case. The de

proper party to proceedings by injunction to re-, lish it, was held sufficient to prevent the running of strain the unlawful traffic as a nuisance. Ihid.. the Statute of Limitations; and an amended petiDisobedience of injunction a contempt of court.

tion after two years was good. Myers v. Kirt, 68

Iowa, 124. The statute which provided a îne of $500 for the Defendant is only liable for all the damages to disobedience of an injunction against the unlawful which he contributed, even though it be dillicult to sale of intoxicating liquors is not unconstitutional. separate the damages to which he did not contribJordan v. Wapello Co. Circuit Ct. 69 lowa, 177. ute. Huggins v. Kavanagh, 52 Iowa, 308; Richmond

Where the selling of intoxicating liquors has been v. Shickler, 57 Iowa, 486. enjoined, proceedings for contempt in disobeying The fact that the wife has purchased liquor from the injunction may be entitled the same as the ac- the defendant under compulsion, or to keep her tion in which the injunction was issued. Mander- husband at home, does not defeat her right to main. scheid v. Plymouth Co. District Ct. 69 Iowa, 240. tain the action. Ward v. Thompson, 48 Iowa, 5x5.

Where one has been fined for violating an in- The defendant's knowing the husband to be in the junction issued under the Prohibitory Liquor Law, habit of becoming intoxicated, and selling him inhe may, upon default in paying the fine, be impris- toxicating liquors while he was intoxicated, will oned, under the general provision of Code, $ 4500; support a verdict for exemplary damages. Weitz and under Laws 1884, chap. 143, § 12, such person v. Ewen, 50 Iowa, 34. cannot avail himself of the benefits of Code, 8 4611, In an action for civil damages for intoxicating which permits a poor person, after having been im- plaintiff's husband, evidence of sales made more prisoned thirty days for failure to pay a fine in a than two years prior to the action is admissible to criminal case, to be released upon giving bis note rebut evidence that the husband had been a confor the amount of the fine, together with a written firmed toper long years before. Gustaison v.Wind, schedule of his property. Hanks v. Workman, 69 62 Iowa, 281. Iowa, t00; Ex parte Tuicher, 69 Iowa, 393. See Car- An instruction by which it was left to the jury leton v. Rugg, 5 L. R. A. 193, 149 Jass. 550.

whether plaintiff contributed to the injury by let

ting her husband have portions of his wages de Action by wife for damages for injury to her means posited with her, when she had reason to believe of support.

that he would purchase liquors with the money, In an action by a wife for damages, an original and that if she did, she could not recover, was held petition claiming a lien on the saloon property, proper. Huff v. Aultman, 69 Iowa, 71. which did not state all the facts necessary to estab- In an action by a wife evidence as to the number,

See also 43 L. R. A. 143.

« AnteriorContinuar »