State v. Hartman, No. 40360.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtALBERT
Citation233 N.W. 533
PartiesSTATE v. HARTMAN.
Docket NumberNo. 40360.
Decision Date13 December 1930

233 N.W. 533

STATE
v.
HARTMAN.a1

No. 40360.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 13, 1930.


Appeal from District Court, Dickinson County; F. C. Davidson, Judge.

The defendant, with one John Hartman, was indicted on a charge of conspiracy to injure the character, business, property, and rights in property of Jasper Alexander and Frank Long, under section 13162, Code 1927. The defendant, Milo Hartman, was tried separately, convicted by a jury, and from judgment entered thereon, he appeals.

Affirmed.

[233 N.W. 533]

H. E. Narey and W. B. Bedell, both of Spirit Lake, and Coyle & Coyle, of Humboldt, for appellant.

John Fletcher, Atty. Gen., and Neill Garrett, Asst. Atty. Gen., K. B. Welty, Co. Atty., of Spirit Lake, and J. J. Hess, Sp. Pros., of Council Bluffs, for the State.


ALBERT, J.

The first error assigned was that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. We cannot set the evidence out in detail, but will summarize, in a general way, the facts which the jury could have found therefrom.

The scene of this trouble was on the shore of Lake Okoboji in Dickinson county. John Hartman, father of the defendant, was the owner of what is known as the “Eagle Boat Line,” and Jasper Alexander and Frank Long were the owners of a competing line. Hartman had rented a concession from the owner of the land adjacent to the lake on the south side of the neck of water connecting East and West Okoboji, and had constructed several docks thereon, from which as a base he handled his boat traffic. The landward end of these docks was connected by a sidewalk and handrail running approximately east and west. Between two of his docks, a street belonging to the town of Arnold's Park terminated at the lake shore.

About July 1, 1929, Alexander and Long constructed a dock extending into the lake at the end of the street, and at the land end of their dock, they cut the handrail on the sidewalk constructed by Hartman, and extended their dock over Hartman's sidewalk to the street, and immediately the trouble between these boat lines commenced. Each owned several different boats which were engaged in passenger traffic and competition became very bitter. Arnolds Park is a summer resort, and there were many concessions, stands, amusements, dance hall, etc., which attracted a large number of people to the lake during the summer season. Threats were made by defendants that they would tear out the docks of Alexander and Long and would have all of

[233 N.W. 534]

the business to themselves. The defendant would holler over when there were people in the Alexander boat and ask them if they expected to get back, and would say that only bootleggers and prostitutes road in the Alexander boats. When the gas man came, defendant would holler over and ask if he expected to get his pay. There were many people there part of whom were passengers and some of them left Alexander's boat. Both the defendant and his father hollered that Alexander and Long had just a pile of junk.

These matters occurred when Alexander was trying to load his boats and within the hearing of prospective passengers. Defendant took some pictures of a boat, which was supposed to be one of Alexander's boats, which was sunk at the dock, and would take it around and show it to people who were going to ride in the Alexander boats to show what had happened. He would ask people if they were sure they were going to get back alive. John Hartman was there most of the time when defendant was making these statements. He would make these statements every time people were there and Alexander was trying to load a boat. This was kept up from July 1st to July 28th. The Hartmans told people that the Alexander boats were not safe to ride in. This line of talk was carried on and indulged in by both the defendant and his father. The defendant said that Alexander and Long could put in the dock, but they would put them out of business. John Hartman, in the presence of the defendant, said to persons on the Alexander boat, “It is not safe for you to ride in,” and, “We will put them out of business.”

One of the principal boats owned by Alexander and Long was known as the “Thriller.” Milo Hartman said, “We will get the Thriller and then we will get you.” John Hartman hollered through a megaphone several times to passengers on the Thriller that “nobody rode those boats but prostitutes and bootleggers.” For them not to go on, that the boat was not safe, and thereupon some of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • State v. Warren, No. 47453
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 4, 1951
    ...consideration to the cases cited by the appellant to wit: State v. Paden, 199 Iowa 383, 202 N.W. 105 and State v. Hartman, 213 Iowa 546, 233 N.W. 533, 239 N.W. 107. The facts in these cases show circumstances which are not present in the instant case. It is our conclusion that there was no ......
  • State v. Hartman, No. 40360.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 24, 1931
    ...by a jury, and, from the judgment entered thereon, he appeals. The facts appear in the opinion. Reversed. Superseding opinion in 233 N. W. 533. [239 N.W. 107]H. E. Narey and W. B. Bedell, both of Spirit Lake, and Coyle & Coyle, of Humboldt, for appellant. [239 N.W. 108]K. B. Welty, of Spiri......
2 cases
  • State v. Warren, No. 47453
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 4, 1951
    ...consideration to the cases cited by the appellant to wit: State v. Paden, 199 Iowa 383, 202 N.W. 105 and State v. Hartman, 213 Iowa 546, 233 N.W. 533, 239 N.W. 107. The facts in these cases show circumstances which are not present in the instant case. It is our conclusion that there was no ......
  • State v. Hartman, No. 40360.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 24, 1931
    ...by a jury, and, from the judgment entered thereon, he appeals. The facts appear in the opinion. Reversed. Superseding opinion in 233 N. W. 533. [239 N.W. 107]H. E. Narey and W. B. Bedell, both of Spirit Lake, and Coyle & Coyle, of Humboldt, for appellant. [239 N.W. 108]K. B. Welty, of Spiri......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT