#### Drake v. Kaiser et al.

1. Intoxicating Liquors: nuisance: constitutionality of statute: federal question. The fact that the enforcement of the statutes for the suppression of intemperance may impair the value of property without compensation to the owners, does not make such statutes repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and affords no ground for removal to the federal courts of a cause in which the relief sought, if granted, would have that effect.

2. Appeal: practice: evidence to support judgment: defective abstract. This court cannot consider whether or not the evidence supports a judgment, when the abstract does not purport to contain all the evidence. A certificate of the judge, set out in the abstract, stating that the report of the short-hand reporter contains all the evidence, is not sufficient.

*Appeal from Wapello District Court*— Hon. H. 0. Traverse, Judge.

Wednesday, March 7.

Action in equity, brought by a citizen of the county, to restrain and enjoin the defendants from maintaining a nuisance. The proceeding is prosecuted under the statute for the suppression of intemperance. The defendants answered that before the enactment of the statute, and at a time when the sale of beer was lawful, they expended a large sum of money in fitting up the building and place now occupied by them as a beer saloon; that the building as so fitted up is,of much greater value for that than for any other use to which it can be put; and they aver that the statute, if applicable to them, has the effect to deprive them of - their property without due process of law, and without making compensation therefor, and that it is in violation of certain provisions of the constitution of the United States. They also filed a petition containing the same allegations, in which they demanded the removal of the cause to the circuit court of the United States. The district court ruled that the cause was not *704removable, and, upon a hearing, granted the relief demanded in the petition. Defendants appeal.

*E. L. Burton*and *O. W. Lyman,*for appellants.

*W. S. Gom*and *W. A. Work,*for appellee.

Reed, «T.

Two positions have, been urged in this court as grounds for the reversal of the judgment entered in the court below: (1) That the district court was divested of jurisdiction by the petition for removal; and (2) that the evidence does not sustain the judgment.

1. intoxicatnuisance*?8' constitutionakryof stat-question. The first position is disposed of by the holding of the supreme court of the United States in *Mugler v. State of Kansas*and *State of Kansas v.*Ziebold, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep., 273. The holding in those cases is to , the effect that the state, m the exercise of its police power, may enact a law forbidding the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage within the state, even though the effect of the regulation is to impair the value of private property, and no provision is made for compensating the owners thereof. Under that holding, the answer and petition for removal do not show any grounds of federal j urisdiction.

2. APPEAL: SeiicfiUio:siqimenV:1 defective aiistract. We cannot, on the record before us, consider the other questions argued by counsel. The abstract does not purport to contain all the evidence introduced and offered on ^ie fcl’^ below. It is true, a certificate of the trial judge is set outin the abstract, to the effect tjie j.gpgj.j. 0f short-hand reporter contains all the evidence offered and introduced on the trial. But it is nowhere averred in the abstract that it contains all the evidence contained in the report made by the reporter. As has been frequently held, this is insufficient. (See *Wisconsin I. & N. R’y Co. v. Secor,*70 Iowa, 647.)

Affirmed.