State v. Snyder

• Decision Date: 08 April 1899
• Citation: 108 Iowa 205,78 N.W. 807
• Parties: STATE v. SNYDER.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

108 Iowa 205

78 N.W. 807

STATE

v.SNYDER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 8, 1899.

Appeal from district court, Poweshiek county; D. Ryan, Judge.

Indictment for keeping a liquor nuisance. From a verdict and judgment of guilty, defendant appeals. Affirmed.D. W. Norris and W. R. Lewis, for appellant.

Milton Remley, Atty. Gen., and J. W. Carr, Co. Atty., for the State.

DEEMER, J.

Defendant is accused of using a building or place in Poweshiek county for the purpose of unlawfully keeping and selling certain intoxicating liquors therein, and of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors therein. He is a banker at Grinnell, and as such is charged with having made the sales in question. There is evidence tending to show that various dealers in intoxicating liquor living in Chicago and Rock Island, Ill., and Oskaloosa, Iowa, shipped intoxicating liquor to Grinnell, Iowa, consigned to themselves. Bills of lading were issued, showing that the shippers were consignees, and these bills, accompanied by sight drafts, were forwarded to the defendant. The drafts were drawn upon various parties, who were ostensibly residents of the city of Grinnell. Some of these parties called upon the defendant, paid their drafts, and received bills of lading for the goods. Armed with this evidence they would go to the railroad depot, and receive the liquors which were consigned by the aforesaid liquor dealers. Some of the witnesses testified that they went to the bank, and asked for a bill of lading; that defendant said he had bills for different prices, and asked them which they wanted; that, upon witness indicating his choice, defendant would accept the money, turn over the bill of lading for the goods, and that witness would then go to the railroad depot and get a box of whisky. Some of them said that they had ordered no liquor, and had received no notice from the shipper that any liquor had been sent; and, if these witnesses are to be believed, it is apparent that no notice was taken of who the drafts were drawn upon, or of any of the usual formalities incident to the collection of a bill of exchange. Whoever called, and was willing and able to pay the price, was accommodated, and received his bill of lading after indicating how much he was willing to pay. We say there is evidence tending to show these facts, and the jury were justified in finding them to be true, although the defendant insists that he had no other connection with the transaction than simply as a collecting agent. Defendant kept no liquor at his bank. It was all at the railroad depot, awaiting proper presentation of bills of lading before delivery.

It is contended in argument that, while it may be true that defendant was guilty of selling intoxicating liquor, he was not guilty of maintaining a nuisance, and that the jury should have been so instructed. The crime of nuisance consists in the keep or use of a building or place in which intoxicating liquors are kept with unlawful intent, or are sold for forbidden purposes. It is the use of a place in which the inhibited acts are done, rather than the doing of those acts, which constitutes the offense. Now, with the practical concession that there was sufficient evidence to justify the defendant's conviction of the crime of selling intoxicating liquors contrary to law,...