Cameron v. Fellows

• Decision Date: 25 October 1899
• Citation: 109 Iowa 534,80 N.W. 567
• Parties: CAMERON v. FELLOWS, JUDGE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

109 Iowa 534

80 N.W. 567

CAMERON

v.FELLOWS, JUDGE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 25, 1899.

Henry Potratz was accused of contempt of court in violating a decree permanently enjoining him from maintaining a liquor nuisance in the Thirteenth judicial district of Iowa. On hearing, he was discharged, and thereupon a writ of certiorari was sued out. Annulled.E. R. Acres, for plaintiff.

John B. Kaye, for defendant.

LADD, J.

A statement of consent to the sale of intoxicating liquors in Winneshiek county, signed by more than 65 per cent. of the voters who cast their ballot at the general election of 1896, was filed with the county auditor May 1, 1897. Due notice of the intention of the board of supervisors to canvass such statement at its January, 1898, sessionwas given, and on January 7th of that year this record was made:

The board then took up the canvass of the liquor petition, completing the same, after finding the result to be as follows:

+----------------------------+
                ¦Townships. ¦Voters.¦Signers.¦
                +-----------+-------+--------¦
                ¦Bloomfield ¦278    ¦214     ¦
                +-----------+-------+--------¦
                ¦Military   ¦270    ¦321     ¦
                +-----------+-------+--------¦
                ¦Wash. 1st  ¦120    ¦116     ¦
                +-----------+-------+--------¦
                ¦Wash. 2d   ¦183    ¦164     ¦
                +----------------------------+
                

The different townships were entered as above, with the number of voters, and signers. Below “Decorah” and “Calmar,” as “Wash.,” were ditto marks and numerals (1st, 2d, etc.), corresponding to the number of wards. It is said this record is insufficient, and that oral evidence was not admissible to explain its alleged defects or to supply omissions. Section 2450 of the Code requires the board's “finding as to the result in the city having over five thousand inhabitants, or the county, as the case may be, and the various towns and townships therein shall be entered of record. And such finding shall be effectual for the purpose herein contemplated until revoked as herein provided.” It was not necessary to add the numbers in each town and township in order to indicate the number in the county, or the relative number of voters and signers. That was a mere matter of computation, and was indicated quite as definitely by the finding of the number who voted and signed in each of the precincts. This record was not as full as desirable. But without explanation it indicated the number of voters and signers in Washington, Calmar, and Decorah by divisions. Whether these were for convenience in counting, because of the existence of wards, or the use of separate papers for the statement of consent, is not disclosed. It may be that oral evidence was not admissible to show what was meant by the use of the numerals, indicating some kind of a division, for that this would add to the record; but, without this evidence, we are of opinion that the record showed the number of electors and voters in the places mentioned. That “Wash.” stood for “Washington” might be proven by oral evidence. This did not add to the record, but made clear the meaning of an abbreviation. Such evidence has been uniformly received to show the conventional meaning of abbreviations, or the habit of parties in using particular abbreviations for certain purposes, though not to show the intention in making use of them. See cases collected in 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 99; Barton v. Anderson, 104 Ind. 578, 4 N. E. 420.

2. If it be conceded that the law as it formerly stood has been repealed by the Code, it does not follow that a statement of consent signed prior to October 1, 1897, could not be considered by the...