State v. Foley

• Decision Date: 24 October 1884
• Citation: 21 N.W. 162,65 Iowa 51
• Parties: THE STATE v. FOLEY ET AL. (Five cases.)
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

21 N.W. 162

65 Iowa 51

THE STATE v. FOLEY ET AL. (Five cases.)

Supreme Court of Iowa, Dubuque

October 24, 1884

Appeal from Marshall District Court.

The defendants in the above entitled cases were each convicted of keeping a nuisance, in the use made by them of a building in keeping and selling intoxicating liquors, and were fined therefor. The defendants appeal.

AFFIRMED.

No appearence for the appellants.

Smith McPherson, Attorney-general, for the State.

OPINION

ADAMS J.

The cases are submitted together as involving the same question of law. The defendants filed a petition for a change of the place of trial, on account of the prejudice of the judge. The petition not only states in a general way the existence of prejudice, but states specifically certain facts as evidence of prejudice. The facts stated are, that the judge had lately been engaged in making public speeches, and against saloon men; that petitioners had been informed that the judge had said at a public meeting that a saloon-keeper was worse than a thief and a robber, and that the judge was acquainted with the defendants at the time the statement was made, and knew them to be saloon-keepers; that he had expressed his opinion and belief that the defendants were guilty of the offenses charged; that the judge recently, upon the trial of a similar case, had manifested a strong prejudice against the defendant in that case; that he told the witnesses upon the stand that they knew that they were not telling the truth and that every one who heard them knew it.

We do not think that the fact that the judge made public speeches in favor of temperance should be regarded as showing a prejudice against these defendants. We have a right to assume that the defendants themselves are in favor of temperance and opposed, not only to sales of intoxicating liquor made in violation of law, but to all other sales, so far as the same lead to intemperance. We have a right to assume that what the judge said against saloon men was said against those who he supposed had been making such sales.

If it was true, as is alleged, that the judge had expressed an opinion that the defendants had been guilty of the offenses with which they were charged, it appears to us that he should have granted the petition. Whatever offense a person may be charged with, it is his right to be tried before a judge who has not prejudged his case. But because the petition...