Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1900-04-02
ss suaaass lsgsu ! 1000

penalty inflicted under that Law then
In force. Nor Az this any civil suit or
commenced prior to the taking effect
of this code. Clearly the reservations
OF section 81 do not reach the general
repeating clause OF section 10 as affect-
ing this matter.
IS Section 81 provides no offense COM
mitted and no penalty OF forfeiture in-
Cured under any statute hereby re-
,pealed and before the repeal takes ef-
feet shall be Affected by the repeal It
will be noticed that in the case at bar
that there WAS no offense committed
or no penalty or forfeiture incurred
prior to the taking effect Of this re-
ipealing statute. 1t is shown by the stip-
.ulation, OF parties that the act herein
sought to be punished was not COM
smitted until long after the repeating
clause OF this section went into effect.
Section 50 provides: No suit or
prosecution pending when this repeal.
takes effect for an offense committed
or for the recovery of aspenalty OF for
feiture incurred shall be affected by the
repeal. it will be noticed that this pro-
vision applies only to the prosecutions
pending or offenses committed prior to-
the taking effect of this repeating sec
ltion.
Therefore. the code OF 1897 clearly
repeats the Law under which this In
junction was granted and necessarily
trepeals the penalties therein contained.
This proceeding is quasi criminal in its
nature, and clearly under the author
tiles must be strictly construed. The
unless the statute in force clearly au-
thorizes it. This Is the uniform hold
ing of the courts. The statute under
which the injunction was granted 2hav-
ing been repealed, this court has no
power to inflict a penalty that repealed
statute provided unless 1t is contained
in some of the above excepting clauses.
But 1t is perfectly clear that none Of
them cover the matter now under con-
slderation. It is therefore the opinion
of this court that it has no Jurisdiction
to inflict upon the defendants the pen-
|alty provided under section 2407 for the
reason that that section, by express
language, is limited to violation of in
juction granted under the provision of
this chapter 1t is equally clear to the
court that 1t has no power to inf1ict
upon this defendant the penalties that
We're provided in the statutes that were
in force at the time of the granting of
1.-The Injunction, but which have been
repealed.
Counsel for complainants in their
brief, do not very seriously contend
at Har hut mi lot hot -
the court to punish for contempt of
this Injunction is not necessarily lim-
l8ited to the powers conferred in the
statute affecting the sale of tntoxicat-
ling liquors. Their contention in SUBJ
stance is that this being Violation OF
an Injunction under the ordinary stat
utes granting to courts power to punish
for contempt. With this contention
the court cannot agree. The original
injunction in this case was entered
clearly in pursuance to the law then in
force affecting the sale of Intoxicating
| liquors, and not under the general stat
utes defining nuisances. Under the gem
eTal statute the court is limited to a
fine of $50 for ordinary contempt, while
under the present statute, 2007, and un-
der. hat statutes as they existed at the
| time of the granting Of this injunction
the court was not authorized to impose
a fine of not less than 5000 nor more
than $1,000. Evidently both of the con.
tempt proceedings and the one here
Instituted were intended to be brought
under the Intoxicating liquor law pro;
vision, and this court feels that it has
no power to infl:ct penalties unless il
can be done in accordance with the
provisions of the law. affecting the
sale of Intoxicating liquors. That is to
say, unless those statutes as now exist
ling! the court has no power TO impose
a penalty for contempt. 1t has not tbs
power to inflict penalties provided by
other statutes clearly not enacted fol
1.-the punishment of this class of con-
ltempts. The demurrer of defendant
will therefore be sustained.
II might add in this connection that
this question being of so much import
ance, affecting as it does. a large num-
Der of injunctians heretofore granted, !!
have deemed it advisable to consul,
with my associates and am authorized
Ito say that the opinion herein before
ANNOUNCED meets with the approval tot
lgall OF my associates in this court"
noon Deceived Her.