Shideler v. Naughton
| Decision Date | 12 February 1914 |
| Citation | 163 Iowa 616,145 N.W. 280 |
| Parties | SHIDELER v. NAUGHTON ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Woodbury County; Wm. Hutchinson, Judge.
Action to enjoin the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors upon premises used and occupied by the defendant Naughton. Petition dismissed, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.John F. Joseph, of Sioux City, for appellant.
Wilbur Owen, of Sioux City, for appellees.
The evidence shows without material controversy that the place in question was being occupied by Naughton as a combination residence, barber shop and pool hall. It was also furnished with counter, drinking glasses and ice box. He sold drinks which are spoken of as “soft,” by which we may assume is meant nonintoxicating beverages. It had the reputation in the neighborhood of being a “blind pig,” or place where intoxicating liquors were clandestinely sold. A raid was made upon the premises by the officers of the law, who found some “15 or 16 bottles of beer in the ice box” and other bottles of beer sufficient to make four full cases. There were also quantities of empty bottles and flasks in barrels and other places about the premises. On another occasion, two bottles of beer and nearly a quart of whisky were found in a gunny sack in the kitchen. At the time of the raid, the officers saw two men drinking beer in a closet, but did not see where they procured it. In one of the rooms there were a table, a bottle of whisky, drinking glasses, and empty bottles. One of the officers says a man was drinking in the pool room down stairs, though on cross-examination it would seem that he had reference to the men drinking beer in the closet. One witness swears that on two occasions he gave another person money to get whisky for him, and that such person took the money, went into defendant's place of business, and returned with the whisky. This statement is denied by the person who is named by the witness as having procured the liquor. On the part of the defense Naughton did not take the stand as a witness or offer any explanation of the circumstances to which we have referred. One Knoll was called for the defense, and said that at the time in question he was bartender in a saloon in that vicinity, and on “the night of the raid” he sold four cases of beer to four persons named by him as Keefe, Kelly, Kennedy, and Cook. These persons, he says, “were going fishing and left the beer with Cook to take next door--into Naughton's place, I suppose, or Brodsky's place.” Kennedy testified to the proposed fishing trip, to the purchase by each of the party of a case of beer and says: “We left it with Cook to have the beer put away so we could get it next morning early.” But strangely enough Cook does not appear as a witness, and no person who has any personal knowledge as to the fact identifies the liquors found at Naughton's place as the same liquors sold by Knoll to the thirsty fishermen. It is said by some of the witnesses that upon a hearing before a magistrate the persons who bought beer from Knoll appeared and laid claim to the goods, and that the magistrate sustained their claim, but no adjudication is pleaded, and the magistrate's record is not in evidence. Whether such adjudication, if one was had, would avail as a defense in this proceeding is a question not presented by the appeal, and we do not undertake to pass upon it.
[1] The trial court expressed the view that at most the testimony gave ground for suspicion of illegal sales, but that it offered no substantial ground for an injunction. We find ourselves forced to the opposite conclusion. One who attempts to carry on an illegal traffic in liquors does not often do it openly. Like many other offenses against the law, it is one of...
To continue reading
Request your trial