State v. Boyd Bros.
| Decision Date | 25 May 1892 |
| Citation | 52 N.W. 513,85 Iowa 740 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. BOYD BROS., et al, Appellants |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Story District Court.--HON. D. R. HINDMAN, Judge.
ACTION in equity to restrain the defendants from maintaining a nuisance by keeping for sale and selling intoxicating liquors in violation of law. After a hearing on the merits a decree was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, as prayed. The defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
J. F. Martin and Funson & Gifford, for appellants.
No appearance for appellee.
The decree of the district court was rendered on the twenty-ninth day of May, 1890. The plaintiff shows, by an additional abstract, that the translation of the shorthand reporter's notes was not filed in the office of the clerk of the district court until the sixth day of January, 1891. That was not in time to secure a trial de novo in this court. Arts v. Culbertson, 73 Iowa 13, 34 N.W. 490; Kavalier v. Machula, 77 Iowa 121, 41 N.W. 590.
Errors have been assigned by the appellants, of which some have not been noticed in argument, and others relate to the effect of the evidence, and cannot be considered. The only assignment which, by the most liberal rule of practice, can be regarded as requiring attention is one which charges error in the court in taxing, as a part of the cost in favor of the attorney for the plaintiff, a fee of thirty-five dollars. The theory of the assignment is that such a fee cannot be taxed in cases prosecuted by the county attorney; but it was held in State v. Douglass, 75 Iowa 432, 434, 39 N.W. 686, that an attorney's fee is taxable in such cases, as well as in those prosecuted by private citizens.
No ground is shown for reversing the decree of the district court. It is therefore AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial