State v. Bussamus
| Decision Date | 06 April 1899 |
| Citation | 78 N.W. 700,108 Iowa 11 |
| Parties | STATE v. BUSSAMUS. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Sioux county; George W. Wakefield, Judge.
The defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of maintaining a nuisance. Affirmed.
During the trial it was stipulated that all the conditions of section 2448 of the Code had been complied with, except those hereinafter mentioned. The wife and son of one Hastings notified the defendant not to furnish him intoxicating liquors. As the defendant admitted receiving this notice, the point made against oral proof of its contents requires no attention. Therefore he sold Hastings Pepsin Bitters. As one witness testified this drink was intoxicating, there was a conflict in the evidence as to whether the defendant had violated the eleventh subdivision of this section mentioned. The evidence also tended to show that written consent of the freeholders owning property within 50 feet of his place of business had not been filed prior to the finding of the indictment, and thereby subdivision 2 of the section was disregarded; but the defendant testified on the trial that he had not complied with subdivision 4, which is, in part, as follows: “Said selling or keeping for sale of intoxicating liquors shall be carried on in a single room having but one entrance or exit, and that opening upon a public business street.” This language is too explicit to require construction. By a single room with one entrance or exit is meant one room, with one door only which may be used, and that on a public business street. This excludes an entrance or exit from or into any other room. Had the legislature intended the use of a room, large or small, in which to store liquors, or for any other purpose, in connection with and opening into the single room, this would have been mentioned, rather than guarded against. A door opened from the room in which defendant operated his saloon into another room or shed, where he stored, and from which he procured, his liquors. This was in violation of the requirement quoted. The jury, then, could properly have returned no other verdict than that of guilty.
2. There was a mistrial at a previous term of court. A member of the jury sat as juror at that trial. This fact was not known to counsel, but whether known to the defendant does not appear. To take advantage of the disqualification of a juror, after verdict, it is incumbent on the party complaining to show affirmatively...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. Hamm
...109 Iowa, 534, 80 N. W. 567;Carter v. Miller, 111 Iowa, 457, 82 N. W. 930;Carter v. Bartel, 110 Iowa, 211, 81 N. W. 462;State v. Bussamus, 108 Iowa, 11, 78 N. W. 700;Ritchie v. Zalesky, 98 Iowa, 589, 67 N. W. 399;Powers v. Klatt, 111 Iowa, 357, 82 N. W. 752;Garrett v. Bishop, 113 Iowa, 23, ......
-
Bell v. Hamm
...109 Iowa 534, 80 N.W. 567; Carter v. Miller, 111 Iowa 457, 82 N.W. 930; Carter v. Bartel, 110 Iowa 211, 81 N.W. 462; State v. Bussamus, 108 Iowa 11, 78 N.W. 700. Ritchie v. Zalesky, 98 Iowa 489; Powers Klatt, 111 Iowa 357, 82 N.W. 752; Garrett v. Bishop, 113 Iowa 23, 84 N.W. 923; State v. V......
-
Sawyer v. Oliver
...with but one exit or entrance. Powers v. Klatt, 111 Iowa, 357, 82 N. W. 752;Garrett v. Bishop, 113 Iowa, 23, 84 N. W. 923;State v. Bussamus, 108 Iowa, 11, 78 N. W. 700;State v. Donahoe, 120 Iowa, 154, 94 N. W. 503;State v. Gifford, 111 Iowa, 648, 82 N. W. 1034;Jones v. Byington, 128 Iowa, 3......
-
Reusch v. Loserth
...entrance or exit. This requirement has been strictly applied. State v. Roney, 133 Iowa 416, 110 N.W. 604. It was said in State v. Bussamus, 108 Iowa 11, 78 N.W. 700, that this statute excludes an entrance or exit from or any other room. Had the Legislature intended the use of a room, large ......