Fairbairn v. Haislet

• Decision Date: 31 January 1894
• Citation: 57 N.W. 702,90 Iowa 143
• Parties: FAIRBAIRN v. HAISLET.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

90 Iowa 143

57 N.W. 702

FAIRBAIRN

v.HAISLET.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 31, 1894.

Appeal from district court, Chickasaw county; W. A. Hoyt, Judge.

The plaintiff is the editor of the New Hampton Courier; and the defendant, of the New Hampton Tribune,--newspapers published in Chickasaw county, Iowa. These two, with four other papers, were applicants for the county printing at the January session of the board of supervisors, 1892. The proceedings of the board were such that it awarded the printing to four of the papers, among which was the defendant's paper,--the New Hampton Tribune. The plaintiff's paper, the New Hampton Courier, was excluded from the list, and he appealed to the district court. In the district court, Fairbairn filed what is denominated in the abstract as “Pleadings of Appellant.” The pleading commences as follows: “The appellant, R. H. Fairbairn, publisher of the New Hampton Courier, shows the court that many of the facts necessary to be known in order to properly understand and decide this case do not appear in the record of the board of supervisors, and he files this pleading to make said facts a part of the record. Such facts are as follows, to wit.” The facts recited are with reference to the proceedings of the board, the appearance before it of the claimants, the facts as to lists presented, and the conclusions of the board in awarding the printing. It is not important to set out the pleading. To this pleading the defendant filed his answer as follows: “Comes F. M. Haislet, defendant, and for answer herein denies each and every allegation in plaintiff's pleading contained. Denies that there was any action taken by the board, from which an appeal could be taken.” Upon the issue thus formed, evidence was taken on the part of the plaintiff, at the close of which defendant filed a motion to “dismiss the appeal and enter judgment for defendant on the following grounds, to wit.” The grounds are 10 in number, each of which is based on what “the evidence fails to show,” or what the “undisputed evidence shows.” The district court overruled the motion, and it then appears from the abstract that “defendant, F. M. Haislet, stands on his said motion, and refuses to plead further.” The court gave judgment for the plaintiff, making his paper one of the official papers of the county, and from the order the defendant, Haislet, appealed.J. W. Sandusky and T. C. Clary, for appellant.

GRANGER, C. J.

1. H. Shaver was attorney for the plaintiff in the proceeding before the board at its January session, 1892, when the order designating the papers was made. At the trial of the issue in the district court, he was called as a witness by plaintiff, and interrogated as to the proceeding before the board tending to show whether or not there was a contest before the board...