State v. Winebrenner

• Decision Date: 22 October 1885
• Parties: STATE v. WINEBRENNER. STATE v. MCMAHON. STATE v. BEECHER. STATE v. RUBURG.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

67 Iowa 230

25 N.W. 146

STATE

v.WINEBRENNER.

STATE

v.MCMAHON.

STATE

v.BEECHER.

STATE

v.RUBURG.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed October 22, 1885.

Appeals from Marshall district court.

Indictments charging the defendants as follows: “The grand jury of the county of Marshall, in the name and by the authority of the state of Iowa, accuse John C. Winebrenner of the crime of nuisance, committed as follows: The said John C. Winebrenner, on the fourth day of July, 1884, and on divers other days prior to the finding of this indictment, and since said day, in a building owned by Albert Sharp, on the south one hundred feet of the east one-third of lot 7 and block 9, in the town of Marshall, in the county aforesaid, wrongfully and unlawfully did erect, continue, and use a certain building and place commonly known as a ‘saloon,’ in which said building and place the said John C. Winebrenner did keep intoxicating liquors, to-wit, whisky, rum, gin, brandy, ale, beer, wine, alcohol, bitters, and mixed drinks, with intent then and there to sell the same in said building and place in violation of law; and at said time and place, and in said building, the said defendant did habitually and repeatedly keep and sell, in the state of Iowa, beer and other intoxicating liquors contrary to law; and at said time and place, and in said building, the said defendant did allow and permit gambling, fighting, drunkenness, and other breaches of the peace, and the same were then and there carried on by and with the consent of the defendant, to the disturbance of others; and said defendant, in said building and place, at said time, did habitually and repeatedly sell ale, beer, wine, and intoxicating liquors to minors and intoxicated persons, and to those in the habit of becoming intoxicated, to the disturbance of others and contrary to law. The defendants severally pleaded guilty, and filed a motion in arrest of judgment, which was overruled, and, judgment being rendered, they severally appeal.Parker & Childs, for appellants.

A. J. Baker, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SEEVERS, J.

1. The record in the foregoing cases and the questions to be determined are precisely the same, and therefore but a single opinion is required.The first ground in the motion in arrest of judgment is that the indictment was found on the seventh day of January, 1885, by a grand jury drawn, selected, and summoned for the year 1884. The term of court at which the indictment was found commenced on the eighth...