State v. Nelson

• Decision Date: 21 April 1882
• Citation: 12 N.W. 253,58 Iowa 208
• Parties: STATE OF IOWA v. NELSON.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

58 Iowa 208

12 N.W. 253

STATE OF IOWA

v.NELSON.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed April 21, 1882.

Appeal from Polk district court.

The defendant was indicted for, tried, and convicted of the crime of nuisance, committed by using a building for the purpose of keeping and selling therein intoxicating liquors contrary to law. The defendant appeals.D. Donovan, for appellant.

Smith McPherson, Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAY, J.

1. The jury being filled for the trial of the cause with the exception of one man, and the defendant having exhausted his peremptory challenges, H. Monroe was called by the sheriff, and upon examination answered as follows: “I have no opinion in this case; I would try my best to do justice to a man on trial for an offence of this kind. Almost every one knows that I am opposed to the business of saloon-keeping. I am opposed to the law regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors, but as long as it stands as it now is I am not prejudiced against a man for selling beer or wine. I am not a license man. I mean just what I say.” The defendant thereupon challenged the juror for cause, because of his opposition to the law as it now exists. The challenge was overruled and the defendant excepted. It appears from the answers of the juror that his opposition to the law grows out of the fact that it does not prohibit the sale of wine and beer. Still the juror testifies that as the law stands he is not prejudiced against a man for selling beer or wine. In other words, that proof of the sale of beer or wine would not have any influence upon him in considering the case, From the juror's statement it appears that his opposition to the law would not affect him in the consideration of the case, and that, notwithstanding such opposition, he could render an impartial verdict. The challenge to the juror was properly overruled.

2. The only witness introduced in chief on the part of the state was James Spencer. For the purpose of impeaching the witness, the defendant introduced a number of witnesses, who testified that the general moral character of James Spencer in the neighborhood where he lives is bad. To sustain the character of the witness, the state introduced one J. C. Painter, who testified that he had known the witness about five years, and never heard anything worse of him than drinking. Upon cross-examination, Painter testified that Spencer had been in his employ for two or three years, and had handled thousands of dollars for him. When called upon to name some person he had heard speak well of Spencer, the witness said: “I don't know that I ever heard any person speak good or bad of him.” The court thereupon said: “Where a man has lived for five years in the neighborhood of a man, and been in his employ for two or three years, and mixed with the same people, and the witness who is on the stand never heard that man's character or honor called in question, that is the best kind of evidence that he is a man of good moral character, for the reason that we have but few trumpeters for what good we do in this world, but we have many trumpeters for the evil we do. It is generally like rolling snow--the further it goes the larger it gets.” The defendant objected to this statement for the reason that the jury are the judges of the testimony.

The state also introduced one D. B. Gotschall, who testified that he was somewhat acquainted with James Spencer, and knew him for two years in Jasper county, but did not know his general moral character in that county before he came to Polk county. The court thereupon said: “You can ask him whether, during all that time, he ever heard his character called in question. I do not decide that that is conclusive proof, but it is good proof tending to show a man's good character. If you have associated and done business with the same people, and never heard his character called in question, you may take it as good evidence tending to establish his character. It is the strongest kind of evidence in that direction.” The defendant excepted to this statement of the court. The state then asked the following question: “You may state whether, while you knew...