Cooley v. Charles Hotel

• Decision Date: 10 March 1911
• Parties: COOLEY v. CHARLES HOTEL ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

130 N.W. 115

COOLEY

v.CHARLES HOTEL ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 10, 1911.

Appeal from District Court, Cerro Gordo County; J. J. Clark, Judge.

“Not to be officially reported.”

Action to enjoin the maintenance of a liquor nuisance. Decree was entered as prayed. The defendants appeal. Affirmed.Blythe, Markley, Rule & Smith and D. W. Telford, for appellants.

M. S. Odle and Wiley S. Rankin, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant Wilson is the proprietor of the Charles Hotel in Mason City, and on hearing was permanently enjoined from keeping for sale or selling therein, directly or indirectly, intoxicating liquors. On appeal he insists: (1) That the evidence was not sufficient to warrant the entry of the decree; and (2) that the premises were not so used for the purposes alleged at the time the action was begun.

The evidence was such as to justify the conclusion that the hotel was generally reputed to be a place where intoxicating liquors were sold, that considerable quantities of beer were consumed therein by the guests of the hotel, that several cases were shipped in the care of the hotel and delivered thereat by the express company each week, and that employés engaged as bell or elevator boys sold beer by the bottle to guests. The defendant denied all knowledge thereof, and testified that he had never kept or sold intoxicating liquors therein directly or indirectly. As he was in personal charge of the hotel, the facts recited put his sweeping denial in issue, and a separate examination of the record has convinced us that the trial court did not err in reaching the conclusion that defendant must have known of the unlawful use of the hotel as alleged. No useful purpose will be served by a review of the evidence. Even if there were no evidence of the keeping or selling of intoxicants within a month or two prior to the commencement of the action, there was no abuse of discretion in entering the decree as prayed. Tuttle v. Bunting, 125 N. W. 844.

Affirmed.