The State ex rel. v. Oeder

• Decision Date: 14 May 1890
• Citation: 45 N.W. 543,80 Iowa 72
• Parties: THE STATE ex rel. v. OEDER
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

45 N.W. 543

80 Iowa 72

THE STATE ex rel. v. OEDER

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

May 14, 1890

Decided May, 1890.

Appeal from Polk District Court.--HON. MARCUS KAVANAGH, JR., Judge.

ACTION against the defendant, a registered pharmacist, to recover penalties prescribed by statute for unlawful sales of intoxicating liquors. The petition charges seven sales to one James Murphy, a person in the habit of becoming intoxicated. Defendant answered, admitting that he was a registered pharmacist, and denying every other allegation of the petition. Trial to a jury. Verdict for plaintiff for two hundred dollars. Defendant appeals.

AFFIRMED.

Guthrie & Maley, for appellant.

Balliet & Stafford, for appellee.

OPINION

GIVEN, J.

I.

On the trial, plaintiff was permitted to introduce in evidence, over defendant's objection, several papers purporting to be applications of James Murphy to defendant for the purchase of intoxicating liquors. The ground of defendant's objection was that the documents were not identified as any part of the reports filed with the auditor by the defendant. The papers are in the usual form of such applications, and are addressed to defendant, and purport to be signed by James Murphy. They were produced by the county auditor, who testified that they came into his possession with the office, that there should be a sworn certificate attached or accompanying them, but that he could not find such a certificate. The deputy-auditor testified that the defendant, in making his reports of sales of intoxicating liquors, always made a sworn certificate, and that, if these papers were filed by defendant, such sworn certificate would have been with them. The defendant, being called by the plaintiff, testified that the exhibits appeared to be in his handwriting. We think this was a sufficient identification of the exhibits to allow them to be received in evidence.

II. At the close of plaintiff's testimony the defendant moved the court to direct a verdict for the defendant, which motion was overruled. Appellant contends that, under the evidence this motion should have been sustained. To maintain his action, the plaintiff must prove sales of intoxicating liquors to James Murphy, as alleged, and that James Murphy was in the habit of becoming intoxicated. One witness testified that he had seen James Murphy, an employe at the East Twelfth street fire department, write his name once, last summer, at a trial, for the purpose of comparing it with another signature, and that he thought the signature to these papers was that of the same James Murphy. This, in addition to the testimony already stated, certainly render these exhibits...