State v. Sterman

• Decision Date: 17 February 1925
• Citation: 202 N.W. 222,199 Iowa 569
• Parties: STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. WILBUR F. STERMAN, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

202 N.W. 222

199 Iowa 569

STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. WILBUR F. STERMAN, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

February 17, 1925

Appeal from Madison District Court.--J. H. APPLEGATE, Judge.

ON indictment charging libel, defendant was convicted, and sentenced to pay a fine of $ 500, and appeals.

Affirmed.

Thomassen Cunningham & Schaetzle, for appellant.

Ben J Gibson, Attorney-general, Neill Garrett, Assistant Attorney-general, and Leo C. Percival, County Attorney, for appellee.

ARTHUR J. FAVILLE, C. J., and EVANS and ALBERT, JJ., concur.

OPINION

ARTHUR, J.

I.

Appellant was a practicing physician in the town of Peru, Madison County, Iowa. The indictment grew out of a church controversy. One W. J. Beeler had been handling some financial matters for the Methodist church at Peru. The indictment charged appellant with writing and publishing a libelous letter, accusing Beeler with appropriating to his own use some of the church funds which he had handled, and making certain other defamatory statements about him. The letter set out in the indictment was as follows:

"October 31, 1923.

"To W. J. Beeler:

"Word has reached me that you are pretending that you do not know why the general public object to handing their money into your care and keeping every time anything is doing at the church. This letter is to tell you in plain English the 'why.' It is because they are tired of knowing that some of their money sticks to your dirty dishonest fingers, and stays in your dirty dishonest pocket. They are also tired of your forever circulating and soliciting contributions for this, that and the other but never contributing to anything yourself. And also tired of seeing you and having you sticking your meddlesome nose into things that do not concern you, and of parading yourself where you are not wanted and where you have no business whatever either socially, officially or otherwise. Your resignation was timely. Just in wise time to avoid being thrown out, both officially and bodily, if need be. Your best place is recently shown. Peddling cigars at public sales is your true station in society and in life.

"[Signed] Wilbur F. Sterman."

W. J. Beeler, to whom the letter was directed, testified that he received the original letter, a copy of which is set forth in the indictment, through the mail; that it was in the handwriting of appellant; that, about a week after he received the letter, he had a conversation with appellant about the letter; and that appellant stated that he could prove the statements in the letter by good, responsible persons, that Beeler took the money.

Another witness testified that appellant admitted to him that he wrote the letter, a copy of which is set forth in the indictment, and stated further that he could prove the statements therein made by some twelve persons. Several other witnesses testified that they saw letters like the letter which Beeler testified to receiving, which is known as "Exhibit A" in the record, and still another witness testified that appellant read the letter, Exhibit A, to him at one time when he was in appellant's office in the fall of 1923. Beeler also testified that he saw copies of the letter in the possession of different parties.

Defendant did not testify in his own behalf. He called two witnesses, D. M. Travis and Ollie Simmons, to show that there was rumor and gossip to the effect that Beeler was appropriating to himself some of the church money, and particularly, some money that was raised on occasion of an entertainment given by Beeler's Sunday school class. Travis testified that he "heard a little talk about the way Mr. Beeler handled the funds of the church" among members of the congregation; that he did not know whether the complaints which were made were true or not. Continuing, the witness stated:

"I do not have any fact within my knowledge as to the manner in which Mr. Beeler did handle the funds of that church. I heard a little complaint about the class play that they had there,--just a kind of rumor and talk, is all."

Witness Simmons testified to hearing some talk relative to the manner in which Beeler handled or accounted for funds of the church, and relative to receipts of an entertainment given by Mr. Beeler's Sunday school class. On motion of the county attorney, the evidence of Travis and Simmons was stricken as immaterial, and merely rumors, based upon hearsay.

A witness called by the State testified that he personally collected the money for the class play put on by W. J. Beeler's class; and that he turned the money over directly to the class treasurer; and that W. J. Beeler did not have the money in his possession at any time.

Three men, who constituted the auditing committee of the church finances, testified that they had examined Beeler's accounts with the church, and found that he had accounted for all moneys of the church coming into his hands.

II. Appellant complains of the overruling by the court of motions for continuance made by him. Several motions for continuance were made. A brief history of the motions, as disclosed by the record, will show that appellant's complaints are without merit.

The indictment was returned December 8, 1923, and plea of not guilty entered on December 11th. Bail was given. The case was assigned for trial for the February, 1924, term of the district court; whereupon defendant moved for continuance to the May term of said court, which motion was overruled; but a few days later, A. G. Rippey, an attorney of Des Moines, Iowa, appeared for defendant and secured continuance over until the May term, and the case was assigned for trial, to commence May 12th. On May 8th, defendant filed another motion for continuance, which was resisted. In support of the motion, defendant stated, in an affidavit, that, on April 1st, he went to San Francisco, to care for a patient who had wired for him; that, on April 3d, Mr. Rippey withdrew from the case as his attorney, which fact was not communicated to him until the 20th of April; that, on April 28th, he left California, and arrived home on the 2d day of May. He states that he was not able to secure counsel and prepare and be ready for trial on May 12th on account of these facts.

The record discloses that, by agreement, the case had been set down for trial on May 12th; that defendant's second motion for continuance over the May term was overruled but that the court generously extended the time for trial to May 19th, for the purpose of...