Iowa territorial gazette and advertiser. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa Territory [Iowa]) 1840-1846, 1842-12-24

BURLINGTON,
DISTRICT COURT OF DIES MONIES
COUNTY. IOWA TERRITORY
OCTOBER TERN, l842.
BEFORE THE non. CHARLES MASON.
1VeLb and Thrmston, rs. Philips and others.
In 1888, the Legislature Of Wisconsin
granted two ferry charters from different
paris Of Burlington to the illinois shore
Of the Mississippi-one TO Lamson, Ladd
and Co., the other to David James, and
their respective heirs and assigns.
These charters were both embraced in
the same statute, one provision Of which
declared that if either Of the grantees
failed to have their respective ferries in
operation within one year, all the priril-
eyes con- errcd by that act should BE- forfeit
I'd. The comrlainants claimed the right
Of ferriage as assignees Of Lamson, Ladd
& Co. They sc, forth that they, and
those under whom they claimed, had in
all respects fully compile with the terms
Of their charter but made no allegation Of
a similar kind in relation to the charter
granted to James. They therefore claim
ed the rights conferred BY their charter
which was on exclusive privilege to ferry
between part Of Burlington and the lli-
nois shore. they then alleged that the
defendants had commenced running a
ferry boat for hire within their charter red
limits and PRAYED an injunction to re-
strain them there:rom. The injunction
was accordingly granted and at The recent
term Of the Court, the defe rdan,s filed a
demurr 10 the com. lainan:s DILL. upon
which, after argument, tho Court made
the following
| DECISION:
! The first point in the argument which I shall
! proceed to consider is the position taken by the
counsel fer the defendants. that the bill does not
show "a sufficient compliance with tie conditions Of
the charter to justify the injunction. The first
section of the at under which the compliments
claim their privilege conters charter on La,n.on.
| Laid 4 Co.. their neirs aud assigns; and the Sc
cond section, one to David James. BY the fourth
sec tom is declared in substance. that it ether
Of the aforesaid grantees should fail to put their
respective ferries into operation within one year
from that date. all the privileges granted by the
act should become forte. tied. II is conten ded that
the object Of the legislature was to secure lhe
public convenience by rendering each responsible
for the other. and that the negligence of either
| was to work forfeiture to both
Such. no doubt. is the literal import Of the
words or the statute 1t is also true that although
III the construction Of statutes we are only to SCI
for the intention Of the legislature still the most
natural and proper mode OF arriving at that inten-
ito" is ordinarily by Of the Language used
Courts however sometimes deviate from this ruie
and disregatding the words Of a statute. seek its
spirit and intent from other sources. Irecollect in
my elementary studies, Of reading Of case where
i'll some Of the Italian States a law had been en-.
acted denouncing a severe penalty against any one
who should diaw blood in the public streets, A
man fell down in tit in the street. A physician
opened vein aud was prosecuted under the
statute. No person under the influence of right
reaso" would ever conclude him guilty Of viola
ton OF the statute aud yet upona literal ,nterpre-
tntion, he must have been convicted.
u The present question Is by no means one which
can be SO satisfactorily solved. Ia fact l ain not
without doubts in relation to the matter. Being
however. compelled to decide. am inclined "a
the opinion that the forfeiture, declared by the
fourth section Of the act not joint but several
/ Nhcn he AT ,,rovi,ios that c..o ,:tt., ~
the grantees shonld fail to comply with its re.
qnirements. all the privileges thereby conferred
should be forteited the most reasonable and
equitable construction seems to be- that only those
privileges are declared to be forfeited which had
been conferred upon the delinquent party. a con
trary construction would render the innocen
punishable for the acts Of the guilty.
This view Of the is fortified BY the fac
that the Legislature that granted the charter
did. at it's next session and long before the ex
piration Of year from the date Of the origina
grant. enlarge the time in tavor OF James, one O
the grantees. 10 allow hin, two years in which
, to put hrs ferry into operation. This would have
been highly unjust towards III. grantees of IL.
other charter it the forfeiture is to be joint. The,
had then no longer the power Of ascertainins
'shet Their James was likely 90 comply with the con
ditions Of his charter before they incurred chs
expense Of starting their own ferry. They would
have been obliged to furnish themselves with
boat and other apparatus bcforc the limit Of time
fixed by their charter subject 20 having the Who'll.
rendered valueltss at the end Of another year BY
the act of an individual over whom they coult
have no control. am therefore Of the opinio,
that the legislature did not intend 10 make tn,
forfeiture Of one charter dependent upon the &C,
, OF the grantee Of the other aud that it was un
necessary for the romplaina its to have alleged j,
their bill that the owners of the other ferr,
had also complied with the conditions Of thei,
charter.
Another ground is relied upon to sustain tn
3 position that the charter Of the tompiainants i
Invalid. The charter granted BY the legisla
! turc Of Wisconsin. The act Of Congress organic
ing this Territory lares. in effect. that all tina
portion Of Wisconsin which lies Jy<ss eftnc Mis-
sissippi yiper shan runSrirure rhs fEvr10Ty q
Iowa. Another provision OF the came acl con
: tnues the laws Of Wisconsin in force here unit
the same repealed. sub,tquent act Of Con
g-ess fixed the middle Of the Mississippi river "a.