Coppock v. Reed

• Decision Date: 06 July 1920
• Docket Number: No. 33260.,33260.
• Citation: 178 N.W. 382,189 Iowa 581
• Parties: COPPOCK v. REED ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

189 Iowa 581

178 N.W. 382

COPPOCK

v.REED ET AL.

No. 33260.^a1

Supreme Court of Iowa.

July 6, 1920.

Appeal from District Court, Crawford County; E. G. Albert, Judge.

A demurrer to the petition on the ground that the facts alleged did not warrant the relief sought was sustained. The plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Brown McCrary and John Urbany, both of Carroll, for appellant.

Thos. H. Reed, of Shenandoah, for appellees.

LADD, J.

According to allegations of the petition, plaintiff was convicted of the crime of cheating in 1911, sentenced to serve 7 years in the penitentiary, so did, and about 18 months after his discharge discovered evidence which, in connection with that adduced at the trial will, as is alleged, establish his innocence, and in this action he prayed that the records in which false statements appear injurious to plaintiff's rights be annulled, changed, and expunged from such records. It seems that plaintiff drew a check for $6.50 on the First National Bank of Shenandoah, Iowa, of which defendant Reed was president, and gave it to one Johnson for value, that the bank refused to honor the check, and that Reed, who was the president of the bank, and M. L. Ayers, deceased, caused him to be prosecuted criminally as above recited, appeared as witnesses, and that their testimony was taken down in shorthand and made a part of the record of the court. Ayers was asked:

“Q. Did you ever authorize him to sign your name to checks drawn on the First National Bank of Shenandoah, Iowa? A. No, sir. Q. Did you ever make any arrangements to honor or have the First National Bank of Shenandoah honor any checks which the defendant might draw on you at any time? A. No, sir. Q. Did defendant to your knowledge sign your name to any checks drawn on the First National Bank of Shenandoah at any time? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you make the payment of any one of these checks? A. No.”

Reed testified:

“I examined all checks; never honored a check signed ‘M. L. Ayers, per A. E. Coppock.’ I should say no arrangements were made to honor checks. I say we never did. We never had the authorized signature of A. E. Coppock. * * * He cashed one check at our bank for $5 drawn on some bank in Omaha, which I cashed,” and that he had other checks.

The petition says that this testimony was false, for that these witnesses had arranged that plaintiff might draw checks on said bank, and thereby did induce plaintiff to make the check mentioned; that they testified to induce the jury to convict the plaintiff; that the latter had no means other than testifying that he had authority to draw the check, and that the bank had honored other checks, and that he never drew a check on an Omaha bank, but did draw one for $5 on the Bank of Dedham, Iowa, with which he had arranged that his checks should be honored; that the jury, however, accepted the testimony of Reed and Ayers, and convicted him; that subsequent to his service in the penitentiary he had ascertained that in litigation between Reed and Ayers in 1911 both had agreed to changing a check or checks signed by plaintiff and paid by the bank to Ayers; and that Reed admitted in writing in December, 1917, that the check on the bank of Dedham had been presented to and paid by the First National Bank. Plaintiff averred that the alleged false statements of these men at the trial were believed and will be continued to be believed to the detriment of his reputation and veracity, that both have remained silent and not corrected their testimony as it was their duty to do, that the plaintiff is without a remedy save by a court of equity, that said false records and evidence are “a continued slander and injury to this plaintiff, and an invasion on his personal rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as guaranteed by the Constitution, and that the officers in permitting the records to remain would be violating the said rights guaranteed to the plaintiff as a citizen,” and he prayed for a decree “that the records wherein they show false statements that are injurious to plaintiff's rights be annulled, changed, and expunged from the records.” By sustaining the demurrer, the district court ruled that the facts alleged did not entitle the plaintiff to the relief prayed and rightly so.

[1][2] The shorthand notes upon being certified as required, became a part of the record. Section 3675 of the Code. It is not pretended that these did not truly represent precisely what Reed and Ayers testified to. The contention is that, though truthfully preserved in the shorthand notes, their testimony was false in the particulars alleged, and that because of this such testimony be “annulled, changed, and expunged from the records”--i. e., the shorthand notes. The clerk of court is charged with the duty of keeping the court records. Section 287 of the Code. These as made up may be corrected, amended or supplied by order of the court. Sections 243, 244, and 4127 of the Code. Goodrich v. Conrad, 28 Iowa, 298;Ormsby v. Graham, 123 Iowa, 202, 98 N. W. 724;Lambert v. Rice, 143 Iowa, 70, 120 N. W. 96. But we know of no authority which will justify annulling, changing, or expunging an absolutely correct record. Certainly this may not be done through the writ of error coram nobis, for that does...