Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1900-04-02
AN||h||P|RIl|||||||| RULING.
Judge Prouty Of Polk County Court
Decides Saloon Contempt Pro.
cesdinga
Decision Il . Victory Tor the Liquor
Men Text Of the
Opinion.
Same Questions Apply to Hundreds
Of Saloons All Over tho
State

Z
Of Saloons All Over tho
Stata
Des Moines. April Fudge Proutys
has filed Tor record his opinion in the.
contempt proceedings brought against
a number Of saloon keepers several
wees ago by the attorneys for the tenn
perance forces and by ]. D. Laws. The
decision is one of the most important
that has been rendered in the Polk
county courts in years because OF its
effect. 1t holds that all in
functions granted against saloon keep
ers in Polk county prior to the enact
ment Of the new code on October 1, 1897,
are invalid. because OF the changes in
the liquor laws, and it follows that evs
cry one Of about q 900 similar injunc..
lions in the ninety-nine counties Of tho
state are invalid.
When the saloon troubles commenced
a few weeks ago the attorneys for the
temperance forces and j. d. Laws for
himself and client. brought actions
against number OF saloon keepers,
asking that they be cited to show cause
why they should not be punished for
contempt Of court. 1t was alleged the
defendants We're guilty OF violating In
functions granted prior to Oct. 1 !, 1897,
by making illegal sales OF liquors and
therefore We're in contempt. In some
of the cases the claim was made that
the violations consisted OF making ille-
gal sales wantonly and in others the
plaintiffs relied on technical grounds,
claiming that the sales made under the
petition rendered Invalid constituted
violations OF the injunctions. To the
petitions for citations Howe & Miller
filed demurrer in which they held that
inasmuch as the legislature in revising
the code had seen fit to repeal the law
under which the injunctions were Sc
cured and to.enact a new liquor law in
its stead that the injunctions had been
and that, therefore, the de-
PENDANTS are not in contempt. The
opinion rendered by Judge Prouty. and
Which sustains the demurrer, is as fol-
lows:
The application for the order in con-
tempt in this case shows that on July II,
1898, an injunction was granted by this
court restraining the defendant and oth-
Iers from continuing a nuisance under
the Intoxicating liquor laws as then in
force. The defendant is now cited for
contempt for the violation Of that I'M
junction by the sale Of Intoxicating IL
quors since the taking effect of the pres
ent code, to wit, October |, 1897. To this
Information showing these facts the de-
PENDANT has filed demurrer, and tnis
raises the question whether or not this
court now has jurisdiction to punish for
contempt the violations of an injunction
that was granted prior to the taking eff
feet of the present code where the vio-
lations have taken place since the pres
ent code went into effect. The present
code, section 2407, provides: In case Of
the violation of any injunction granted
under the provisions OF this chapter the
court, or in vacation a judge thereof,
may sunmarily TRIP and punish the of
fender. The proceedings shall be COM
menced by filing with the clerk Of the
court an information under oath setting
out the alleged facts. constituting such
violation upon which the court or Judge
shall cause a warrant to issue under
which the defendant shall be arrested.
The trial may be had upon atfldavit, or
either party may demand the produc-
ton and oral examination OF the witness
ses. "A party found guilty OF contempt
under the provisions of this section shall
be punished by a fine OF not less than
5000 nor more than $1,000. or by impris-
onment in the county Jail not less than
three nor more than six months, or by
both fine and imprisonment
1T will be noticed that the penalties
herein provided can be inflicted only In
case Of the violation of any injunction
granted under the provisions OF this
chapter The record in THE case at bar
shows that the injunction for the viola
tion OF which the defendant is sought
to be punished was not granted under
the provisions of this chapter, having
been granted prior to the taking effect
of the present code. 1t is therefore per-
fectly apparent to the court that this
section. 24O7, does not give the court
power TO impose the penalty therein
provided for the violation OF injunctions
entered prior to the taking effect Of this
section.
I'VE now inquire whether the penal-
ties imposed by the law in existence
prior to the taking effect Of this code,
and which were in force at the time Of
the granting of this injunction, can be
imposed by the court. And this leads
us to the consideration Of the provisions
of the code OF 1897 relative to the repeal
Of former sections. Section 40 OF the
code Of 1897. among other things pro-
vides: All public and general statutes
adopted prior to the present extra ses-
sion Of the general assembly, except
acts apportioning money when the same
has not been fully paid out. and all pub
lie and special acts. the subject where
OF are herein revised or which are re-
pugnant hereto are repealed subject to
the Limitations and provisions herein
after expressed. There can be no ques-
tion but what the intoxicating liquor
laws az existed In the statute prior to
the adoption Of this section We're pub
lie and general statutes and there is no
question but what these statutes were
revised by the present code. so that the
liquor laws in force prior TO the adop-
Ltion OF the present code were repealed
blythe code unless preserved by the linn
ttations and exceptions therefore pro-
yided In the code.
by the effect Of section 80 this code
went into effect Oct. !. 1897.