State v. Vail
| Decision Date | 24 October 1881 |
| Citation | 57 Iowa 103,10 N.W. 297 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA v. VAIL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Hardin district court.
The defendant was arrested upon an information charging him with the sale of ale, beer, porter, and mixed liquors, contrary to the statutes of Iowa and the ordinances of the incorporated town of Eldora. Upon a trial before a justice of the peace he was adjudged guilty. He appealed to the district court, where he was tried and acquitted upon the ground that the ordinance of the town of Eldora, under which the prosecution was had, was not legally enacted. The state appealed to this court, and the judgment of the district court was reversed. The costs in this court were taxed to the defendant. He now moves to retax the costs and relieve him from the payment thereof.H. L. Huff, for defendant.
Smith McPherson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The ordinance under which the defendant was prosecuted provided that its violation should be punishable by a fine of not less than $5, nor more than $50, and in default of payment imprisoment in jail not exceeding 30 days. This, and many other ordinances of cities throughout the state, make the offences which they prohibit criminal in their nature and punishable by fine and imprisonment. The law provides that where the defendant in a criminal case is acquitted of the charge in the district court, the state may appeal; but this court cannot reverse the judgment, or so modify it as to increase the punishment. Code, § 4539, and see State v. Kinney, 44 Iowa, 444.
In a criminal case, then, where there is an acquittal in the district court and the defendant is discharged, the discharge is an end of the case so far as he is concerned. The appeal is a matter of no moment to him, and indeed in many criminal cases where the state appeals the defendants do not appear in this court. Such was the case in the present instance. See 53 Iowa, 550.
It only remains to be determined whether or not this was a criminal proceeding. It appears to us that where authority is given to a municipal corporation to pass ordinances, the violation of which is punishable with fine, or fines and imprisonment, the proceedings thereunder are necessarily criminal proceedings. See Jaquith v. Royce, 42 Iowa, 406. All of the proceedings in the district court, upon appeal, are the same as upon appeals from the judgments of justices of the peace under the criminal laws of the state. Now, when the state has...
To continue reading
Request your trial