Sawyer v. Hutchinson

• Decision Date: 26 October 1910
• Citation: 149 Iowa 93,127 N.W. 1089
• Parties: SAWYER v. HUTCHINSON, JUDGE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

149 Iowa 93

127 N.W. 1089

SAWYER

v.HUTCHINSON, JUDGE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 26, 1910.

Certiorari proceedings to review the action of the defendant judge in dismissing an information filed against one G. A. Pecaut for the violation of a liquor injunction decree. Affirmed.John F. Joseph, for plaintiff.

Henderson & Fribourg, for defendant.

DEEMER, C. J.

G. A. Pecaut was accused by information of the violation of a decree restraining him from the sale of intoxicating liquors in Woodbury county contrary to law. It is charged that the evidence showed a violation of this decree, in that Pecaut sold, or permitted the sale of, intoxicants to minors in and from his saloon and permitted minors to frequent his place, all of which was contrary to and in violation of law and of the decree of court passed against him. The questions made upon this proceeding, save some collateral constitutional ones which we do not find it necessary to determine, are of fact; and we are asked to annul the proceedings of the defendant in dismissing the charge and discharging the accused because of error in his conclusions upon the testimony adduced. That we have such power is already settled by prior adjudications of this court. See Lindsay v. Clayton County, 75 Iowa, 509, 39 N. W. 817;Barber v. Brennan, 140 Iowa, 678, 119 N. W. 142;Lewis v. Brennan, 117 N. W. 279; and other like cases.

Doubtless under these decisions the trial here is de novo; but we have never held that the finding of the trial court on issues of fact upon conflicting testimony is not entitled to weight, especially where the testimony is equally balanced, or there is fair room for a difference of opinion upon the issues involved. In such cases the appearance and demeanor of the witnesses is of very great aid in determining the very truth, and the trial judge had the advantage of having the witnesses before him.

Again, a contempt proceeding, being quasi criminal in nature, calls for a greater weight of evidence than an ordinary civil case, and the rule generally prevailing in other states is that a clear case should be made out before an accused will be punished for violating an injunctional decree. Hydock v. State, 59 Neb. 296, 80 N. W. 902;In re Taylor, 10 Pac. 88;¹Benbow v. Kellom, 52 Minn. 433, 54 N. W. 482;State v. Cunningham, 33 W. Va. 607, 11 S. E. 76. And such appears to be the rule with us. Allen v. Brennan, 126 N. W. 771.

Of course, if the testimony be uncontradicted, or so clearly...