Silvers v. Traverse

• Decision Date: 30 January 1891
• Citation: 82 Iowa 52,47 N.W. 888
• Parties: SILVERS v. TRAVERSE, JUDGE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

82 Iowa 52

47 N.W. 888

SILVERS

v.TRAVERSE, JUDGE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 30, 1891.

Certiorari. Original proceeding.

W. S. Coen, for plaintiff.

W. A. Work and J. F. Blake, for defendant.

BECK, C. J.

An information was filed in the district court of Wapello county charging plaintiff in this case with violating an injunction restraining the sale of intoxicating liquors upon premises described in the decree and other proceedings. There was no copy of the decree, and injunction whereon it was issued, attached to or set out in the information. It shows that the decree was rendered in the same court wherein it is filed, and that it sets out the date of the rendition of the decree, and the book and page wherein it is recorded. The decree was introduced in evidence in the trial of the case. It enjoins and restrains all persons from using or occupying the premises for unlawful keeping or traffic in intoxicating liquors. The plaintiff herein was not a party to the injunction proceedings. He leased the premises from the defendant named in the injunction decree, and they are the same as are described therein. It was shown upon the hearing on the information for contempt, by sufficient evidence, that plaintiff occupied and controlled the premises, and used them for the unlawful keeping and sale of intoxicating liquors. No evidence was introduced in the trial in behalf of plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that the district court acted illegally: (1) In overruling a motion made by him to quash the information for the reason that it contained no copy of the injunction decree; (2) in admitting the decree in evidence against plaintiff's objection, based upon the ground that plaintiff was not a party to the injunction proceedings; (3) in finding plaintiff guilty without evidence showing that he had knowledge of the decree and injunction; (4) in finding plaintiff guilty when he was not a party to the original injunction proceedings.

2. The contempt proceedings were in the same court wherein the injunction proceedings were had. The decree is specifically referred to in the information. The contempt proceedings were brought before the court, and not before the judge at chambers. The information, in that it showed the violation of the injunction, and the existence of the decree, was a sufficient compliance with Code, § 3495, applicable to proceedings before the court. Code, § 3403, cited by plaintiff's counsel, requires, when proceedings for contempt are instituted before a judge, that an authenticated copy of the injunction shall be furnished to him. This section is not applicable to this case.

3. The second and fourth objections to the judgment in the contempt proceedings are based upon the ground that plaintiff was not a party to the injunction proceedings. Code, § 1543, provides that “any person violating the terms of any injunction” to abate the nuisance existing in a place kept for the unlawful keeping or sale of intoxicating liquors shall be punished for contempt. It will be observed that this...