Case ID: iowa_85/html/0705-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Granger, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

W. S. Smith, Appellant, v. E. C. Foster, Sheriff, Appellee.
    Appeal: former adjudication.
    
      Appeal from an order of D. B. Hindman, District Judge, sitting in Marshall Gotmty.
    
    Proceeding by habeas corpus. The plaintiff, at the time referred to in the record, was a resident of Marshall county. The defendant is the sheriff of Tama county. In February, 1890, the plaintiff was indicted by the grand jury of Tama county, and charged with having committed a nuisance by placing or depositing in Linn creek, in Marshall county, a large quantity of filth, offal, acids and poisonous substances, which were by the waters of Linn creek carried into the waters of the Iowa river, in Marshall county, and by the flow of said river into Tama county, whereby the waters of the Iowa river in Tama county became corrupted, and were rendered unwholesome and impure. By proceedings pursuant to the indictment the plaintiff was arrested by the defendant, as said sheriff, and confined in the jail of Tama county. To test the legality of said imprisonment the writ of habeas corpus in this proceeding was issued by Hon. D. R. Hindman. At the hearing pursuant to the writ the issues were such that the validity of the instrument was questioned in several particulars, and among them, first, that the district court of Tama county had no jurisdiction of the offense charged in the indictment; second, that the indictment did not charge an indictable offense. The trial judge, at the conclusion of the hearing, made the following findings and order: "I find that I have no authority for determining whether or not the district court of Tama county, Iowa, has jurisdiction' to fully try and determine the alleged crime set out in the indictment, and for that reason the bill for the discharge of the complainant is hereby dismissed, and the complainant is is hereby remanded to the custody of the sheriff of-Tama county, Iowa.” From this order the plaintiff- appealed.
    
    Affirmed.
    
      
      J. L. Carney, for appellant.
   Granger, J.

The indictment referred to in the statement of the ease has been tried in Tama county, resulting in a verdict and judgment against the plaintiff in this suit, and on appeal to this court the judgment of the district court was affirmed. State v. Smith, 82 Iowa, 423. The ground upon which it is urged in this proceeding that the district court of Tama county was without jurisdiction of the offense charged in the indictment is that the act constituting the offense was done or committed in Marshall county, and that upon which it is urged that the indictment does not charge an indictable offense is that the acts do not constitute “a public or common nuisance.” These questions upon the grounds urged are ruled and settled adversely to the appellant in the appeal referred to, and they are the only questions to be considered.

This case was submitted before the determination of the appeal, which probably accounts for this cause being submitted to us. Affirmed.