State v. Cummins
| Decision Date | 30 October 1888 |
| Citation | 40 N.W. 124,76 Iowa 133 |
| Parties | STATE v. CUMMINS. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Appanoose county; DELL STUART, Judge.
E. Cummins, the defendant, was indicted for the crime of nuisance alleged to have been committed by the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors. From a judgment of conviction he appeals.T. M. Fee, for appellant.
A. J. Baker, Atty. Gen., for the State.
During the time covered by the indictment the defendant was a registered pharmacist, and held a permit, issued by the proper board of supervisors, which authorized him to sell intoxicating liquors for mechanical, medicinal, culinary, and sacramental purposes. Sales of intoxicating liquors are admitted by defendant, but he claims to have made no sales unless authorized by law for medicinal purposes.
1. A witness for the state testified that he had purchased alcohol and whisky of defendant at the place and within the time charged in the indictment, but that the liquors so purchased were for medicinal purposes only. He was then asked how many times he was sick in 1888; what his physical ailments were when he made the purchases, and their effect upon his appearance. Objections to these and other questions of a like character were made by defendant, but overruled. He now complains of these rulings. We think they were correct. In cases of this kind it is not unusual for the purchaser of liquor illegally sold to endeavor to shield the seller from the consequences of his unlawful act. The state should not be compelled to accept the conclusions of the purchaser as to the object for which the purchase was made, but should be permitted to inquire into the facts, and show, if it can do so, that the alleged object of the purchase was a mere pretense, made to give color of legality to the transaction, and that the defendant knew, or had reasonable grounds for knowing, that fact. The questions under consideration were designed to show the circumstances under which the sales were made, and to show whether or not they were made in good faith, and for purposes authorized by law. If the liquor sold was used for a purpose for which defendant was not authorized to sell it, he cannot exonerate himself from liability by showing that the purchaser stated that he desired it for a lawful purpose, if the facts known to the seller were such as to give reasonable grounds for believing that the purchaser was not acting in good faith, or if the seller failed to exercise due care to ascertain the real intent of the purchaser.
2. Some of the witnesses for the state were asked, on direct examination, if they had not at another time testified to facts in conflict with testimony they had just given. Appellant complains of the ruling of the court in permitting such questions to be answered. It was competent for the state to call the attention of witnesses to testimony given by them at another time, for the purpose of refreshing their recollection, and the questions objected to seem to have been asked for that purpose. We discover no error in permitting them to be answered.
3. The state was permitted to introduce witnesses in support of the indictment who were not examined before the grand jury, and of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shapiro v. United States
...583, 584, 38 N.W. at page 494. Petitioner's records were in his possession and were not open for public inspection. (9) State v. Cummins, 76 Iowa 133, 40 N.W. 124 (same as State v. Smith, (10) People v. Henwood, 123 Mich. 317, 82 N.W. 70 (liquor sales reporting requirement held valid). (11)......
-
Bowles v. Misle
...periodically prepared and filed with public authority by legal requirement. State v. Smith, 74 Iowa 580, 38 N.W. 492; State v. Cummins, 76 Iowa 133, 40 N.W. 124; People v. Henwood, 123 Mich. 311, 82 N.W. 70. Interestingly, the Supreme Court in the Wilson case said 221 U.S. 361, 31 S.Ct. 545......
-
State v. Davis
...and it was held by the Supreme Court of that state, in the two cases of State v. Smith, 74 Iowa 580, 38 N.W. 492, and State v. Cummins, 76 Iowa 133, 40 N.W. 124, such reports could properly be used as evidence against a druggist indicted for making an unlawful sale of liquors, or indicted f......
-
In re Grand Jury Proceedings
...N.Y. 532, 53 N.E. 527, L. & N.R.R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 51 S.W. Rep. (Ky.) 167; State v. Smith, 74 Iowa, 580 38 N.W. 492; State v. Cummins, 76 Iowa, 133 40 N.W. 124; People v. Henwood, 123 Michigan, 317 82 N.W. 70; Langdon v. People, 133 Illinois, 382 24 N.E. The fundamental ground of decis......