Applegate v. Winebrenner

• Decision Date: 22 October 1885
• Citation: 67 Iowa 235,25 N.W. 148
• Parties: APPLEGATE v. WINEBRENNER AND ANOTHER.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

67 Iowa 235

25 N.W. 148

APPLEGATE

v.WINEBRENNER AND ANOTHER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed October 22, 1885.

Appeal from Marshall circuit court.

The plaintiff is the wife of Philip Applegate, and she alleges in her petition that the defendant Winebrenner is the keeper of a saloon, in which he sells intoxicating liquors, and that at various times within six months next before the commencement of the suit said Winebrenner wrongfully and illegally sold to plaintiff's said husband, at said saloon, intoxicating liquors when he was sober, causing his intoxication; and sold intoxicating liquors to him when he was drunk, and thereby contributed to his drunkenness; and that plaintiff has thereby been injured in her person, property, and means of support.

She further averred that the defendant Sharp is the owner of the building and ground where said saloon was kept, and that he had notice of the wrongs complained of, and notice that Winebrenner was selling intoxicating liquors at said saloon in violation of law. Judgment was demanded against Winebrenner, and it was prayed that such judgment be made a lien upon the saloon property. The answer of the defendants was a general denial. There was a trial by jury, which resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, and a finding that the defendant Sharp knew and consented to the sales complained of. A judgment was entered upon the verdict, and the same was established as a lien upon the property of Sharp. Defendants appeal.Parker & Childs, for appellants, John C. Winebrenner and another.

Caswell & Meeker, for appellee, Francis L. Applegate.

ROTHROCK, J.

1. The appellee filed an additional abstract, the correctness of which is denied by the appellants. This would ordinarily compel us to resort to the transcript to settle the conflict in the abstracts. This course is not necessary, however, in this case. There is enough in the record as made by the abstracts, and about which there is no dispute, to dispose of the appeal. The action was commenced in September, 1884, and the plaintiff alleged that Winebrenner sold her husband intoxicating liquors for a period of six months previous thereto, and that the liquors so sold caused or contributed to his intoxication. The plaintiff was examined as a witness in her own behalf, and she was permitted to testify, against the plaintiff's objection, that in September, 1883, her husband went to Marshalltown and came home at 4 o'clock in the morning, and unjustly accused her of wrongful acts, and while...