Harris v. Hutchison
| Decision Date | 09 April 1913 |
| Citation | 140 N.W. 830,160 Iowa 149 |
| Parties | ED. HARRIS, Petitioner, v. M. E. HUTCHINSON, Judge, and E. V. TUTTLE, Defendants |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Certiorari from Carroll District Court.--HON. M. E HUTCHINSON, Judge.
PROCEEDINGS in certiorari to review the action of the court in finding the petitioner, Ed. Harris guilty of contempt in the violation of a certain decree of injunction against certain premises. Judgment of the lower court Annulled.
Order Annulled.
L. H Salinger and Ralph Maclean, for petitioner.
M. S Odle, for defendants.
In a certain action pending in the district court of Carroll county, Iowa wherein E. V. Tuttle was plaintiff, Joe Judge, M. Bunting, and W. A. MacLagan were defendants, there was entered, on the 8th day of December, 1908, a decree of perpetual injunction against said defendants enjoining them from keeping and maintaining a liquor nuisance on the south twenty feet of lot 1, block 21, Carroll, Iowa. In that action it was adjudged and determined that the defendants Joe Bunting and W. A. MacLagan were occupying said premises and thereon keeping and maintaining a nuisance, and that the defendant MacLagan was the owner of the premises, and that the nuisance was maintained with his knowledge and consent. Thereupon the court entered an injunction forever and perpetually enjoining the defendants Judge and Bunting from keeping and maintaining a nuisance in or on the said premises or anywhere else in the Sixteenth judicial district by selling or keeping for sale, contrary to law, or by being concerned or engaged in any matter by themselves, their servants, agents, employes, or lessees in the business of keeping, with intent to sell, such liquors in said building unlawfully, or in any other building in the Sixteenth judicial district of Iowa and strictly and perpetually enjoining all persons else from keeping or using said premises for the unlawful keeping or traffic in intoxicating liquors.
It appears that on the 4th day of April, 1912, the said Tuttle filed in the office of the clerk of said court an information against the petitioner herein, Ed. Harris, charging that, since the rendition of said decree, the said Harris has sold intoxicating liquors on said premises in violation of law and of the injunction, and praying that a warrant issue for his arrest; that he be arrested, brought before the court and adjudged in contempt of court, and dealt with as provided by law. That thereupon a warrant was issued and the said Harris arrested and brought before the court charged with contempt in the violation of said injunction. That, upon the hearing of said cause, the court, finding that the injunction had been entered substantially as stated, entered the following decree:
That on or about the 19th day of July, A. D. 1912, the said defendant, Ed Harris, became a clerk or bartender in a saloon then maintained on the premises described in the said decree of injunction by the said Judge and Bunting, and continued as such until about the 23d day of December in said year. That when assuming, and while engaged in such employment, he had no actual knowledge of the existence of said decree, nor of the fact that during his said employment his employers had been adjudged guilty of contempt of court for violating the same. That said defendant, Ed Harris, sold liquors in said building from time to time during his employment, and that his said employers had not complied with the conditions of the law regarding such sales, and that such sales were illegal and in violation of law; and the evidence taken herein shows, and I so find, that the said defendant, Ed Harris, has violated said injunction by making sale, as the employee of the persons who were maintaining a liquor nuisance on said premises, notwithstanding his ignorance of the existence of said decree; and said evidence was duly taken down by the official shorthand reporter, and has been duly certified and filed and entered of record in said case; and the said defendant having been given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be dealt with as for contempt, and he having made no sufficient defense, it is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the said defendant be, and he is hereby, adjudged guilty of contempt of court for the violating of said injunction by selling intoxicating liquors in violation of law, as hereinbefore found, in said building and on said premises, and it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the said Harris be, and he is hereby, fined in the sum of $ 200 and adjudged to pay the costs of this action, taxed at $ . Said costs shall include an attorney's fee at $ 50, to be taxed in favor of M. S. Odle, relator's attorney. It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the said defendant, Ed Harris, be committed to the county jail of Carroll county, Iowa until said fine be paid; said commitment, however, not to exceed one day for every three and one-third (3 1/3) dollars of said fine, or a total of sixty (60) days, and the sheriff of Carroll county, Iowa is hereby ordered and directed to execute this order and judgment.
Upon the entering of such decree, the said Harris sued out a writ of certiorari and thereon brought the case to this court for determination.
All the facts material to this controversy are found and set out in the decree of the court, and all the facts therein set out are sustained by the evidence introduced on the trial of the cause. The question here is, Did the court, under the facts, err in finding the petitioner guilty of contempt and in assessing a fine against him therefor? There are many questions discussed in this case, but, in view of the position we take, it is not necessary or material that they be discussed or determined. The only question which we will consider is, Was the petitioner chargeable with notice of this decree, so that he became subject to it, and liable, as for contempt, in entering the employ of Judge and Bunting as a bartender, and as such dispensing liquors upon the premises covered by the injunction?
It will be noticed that the portion of the decree which goes to the right of Judge, Bunting, and MacLagan is much broader and more comprehensive than that under which, if at all, this petitioner can be held liable. The decree enjoined the defendants in the suit not only from maintaining a nuisance on these premises, but from maintaining a nuisance on these premises, but from maintaining anywhere else within the Sixteenth judicial district, either by themselves or by their servants, agents, employees, or lessees, and from being in any manner concerned or engaged in the business in this building, or in any other building, within the Sixteenth judicial district. This portion of the injunction goes to and touches the defendants in that suit. The portion of the decree which affects this petitioner, if at all, is that portion which provides that all other persons are strictly and perpetually enjoined from keeping or using the premises described in the decree for the unlawful keeping or traffic in intoxicating liquors.
The first question here presented for our determination is, Was Harris keeping or using the premises, described in the decree, at the time these...
To continue reading
Request your trial