Grier v. Johnson

Decision Date15 May 1893
Citation55 N.W. 80,88 Iowa 99
PartiesGRIER v. JOHNSON, JUDGE.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Certiorari to the defendant as judge of the district court. The plaintiff was enjoined from maintaining a nuisance in the keeping and sale of intoxicating liquors, and upon complaint made he was attached for contempt. Upon the hearing he was adjudged guilty, and a fine of $500 was imposed, with a judgment for imprisonment until the fine was paid. Certain complaints are made as to the legality of the proceedings, to test which this action was instituted.Liston McMillen, for plaintiff.

Byron W. Preston, for defendant.

GRANGER, J.

1. After the trial before the district judge, in arguing the case, the county attorney alluded to the fact that the defendant in that proceeding was not a witness in his own behalf, by saying, as it is expressed in the return to the writ in this case: “That this was a contempt case, and that there was evidence against the said defendant, Dave Grier, that he had violated the injunction; and that, under such circumstances, in any other kind of a contempt case, it was the duty of the person charged to purge himself of the contempt.” The return further shows that the judge, in rendering the decision, made something of a similar reference, but did not give it as a reason for finding the defendant guilty. These matters are urged as illegalities that should reverse the judgment, the argument being that the mistake of the county attorney, supplemented by the court's adoption of the theory, is an illegality, even if there is evidence to sustain the finding of guilt. With reference to the court's adopting the mistake of the county attorney,--if it was a mistake,--the language of the return is as follows: “I stated, in substance, that the defendant should purge himself of contempt; and that I did not think that the statute, which prohibits the attorney from referring to the fact that the person accused did not testify, applied to this kind of a case.” To our minds, the record, as it indicates the acts and purposes of the court, is somewhat misapprehended. The argument is upon the theory that the court sought, before there was a finding of guilt, to require the defendant to “purge his contempt” in some way. We do not so understand the record. This remark by the court was made when announcing its decision, after the testimony was in and arguments of counsel were heard, when, in its judgment, the defendant was guilty; and the correct...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT