Runion v. Haislet
| Decision Date | 06 February 1894 |
| Citation | 57 N.W. 902,90 Iowa 376 |
| Parties | RUNION v. HAISLET. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Chickasaw county; W. A. Hoyt, Judge.
The plaintiff is the publisher of the New Hampton Times, a weekly newspaper published in Chickasaw county. He applied to the board of supervisors of that county in January, 1892, to have his paper selected as one of the official newspapers of the county, under the provisions of section 307 of the Code. The board ignored that paper, and selected four others. From that action the plaintiff appealed to the district court. After a hearing in that court, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff. F. M. Haislet, proprietor of one of the papers selected by the board, appeals.J. W. Sandusky and T. C. Clary, for appellant.
R. J. W. Bloom, for appellee.
The only action of the board of supervisors in regard to the selection of newspapers shown by the record of its proceedings is as follows: “On motion it was ordered that the New Hampton Tribune, Iowa Free Presse, Lawler Dispatch, and Nashua Times be the official papers of the county to publish the proceedings of the board of supervisors of Chickasaw county, Iowa, for the year 1892, and that the said four papers publish said proceedings for the same compensation as two papers are allowed by law to publish same.” The appellant was the publisher of the New Hampton Tribune. On the 4th day of January, 1892, that being the first day of the session of the board, the plaintiff deposited with the county auditor a certified statement, subscribed and sworn to, which gave the number and names of the bona fide yearly subscribers for his paper living within the county, with the post-office address of each. At a later time, but before the board made any selection, R. H. Fairbairn, publisher of the New Hampton Courier, filed with the auditor a similar statement in regard to the Courier. Both statements were sealed, and were opened by the auditor at the request of the board, and were examined by it. No other statements were filed, and no day was named by the board for filing them. Mr. Fairbairn was represented before the board by attorney, who presented his claim, and asked that he be heard before the papers were selected. Mr. Haislet was also before the board as an applicant for the selection of his paper, although he did not file a statement; but there was no time when representatives of the papers selected and of those which were unsuccessful applicants were before the board together, and none were present when the matter was discussed and determined by it. The appellant contends that there was no contest before the board of supervisors, within the meaning of the statute; that the statement of the plaintiff was filed without the order of the board or other authority; that the evidence fails to show that other applicants had notice that statements had been filed; that no charge of fraud was made, and that there was nothing from which plaintiff could appeal. Section 307 of the Code, as amended by chapter 197 of the Acts of the 20th GeneralAssembly, contains the following...
To continue reading
Request your trial