Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1909-05-13

81 ue biu ENFORCE, NOT Sucn, as conSlu-
erat1ons of public policy may suggest
tho legislature ought to have made.
The language Of the statute in ques-
ton is, In my. judgement, SO plain as
ITO leave no opportunity for the court
to advance that policy beyond the let
ter and spirit of the law.
The record in this case does not af-
lord ground for anv argument or
claim based upon the proper placing of
the burden of proof Evidence has
been introduced by one party or an
other in regard to every name on the
revocation petition that the defendants
nave not admitted to be the valid sig
nature OF one who voted. Witnesses
in open court examined the registra-
ton lists of the seven wards of the
city to ascertain If the persons whose
names appeared on the petition and
CONCERNING whom no other proof was
offered, had registered or voted. In
this state of the record the status of
every name, not conceded to be valid,
must be determined from the evil
dence and cannot rest on presump~
ton
The Actual Figures.
Turning, now, to the facts as devel-
oped on the trial, it appears that 1858
persons voted at the last general cleo
ton in the city. A majority of this
number is 2677. The plaintiff and in
tervenor Mills claims there are 1904
names on the revocation petition. The
correct number under the evidence.
however, is 1899. In this number there
are 10 names, appearing twice and
shown bv the evidence to be duplicate,
and 10 that the evidnece shows were
neither signed nor authorized by the
persons whose signatures they purport
to be. In addition to the foregoing
there are 239 names of persons who
did not vote at the last general cleo
tion. This makes 26S names upon the
petition that cannot be counted; and
by deducting that number the petition
is found to contain the names of not
more than 1851 persons who voted at
the last general election. This is As
less than the required majority. 1t
may be said in explanation of these
terially from those presented by the
parties in argument. The practical re
suit would be the same as those in the
tabulated statement submitted if ar
gument on behalf of Mills were used.
1t will be noted that the result is
reached not by counting the valid sig
natures on the petition but by deduct
ing from the whole number of sigma
lures those thit it is clearly shown
cannot for the reasons indicated, be
counted. None are deducted that are
doubtful but only those that could not
under any view of the evidence be
considered the valid signatures of
those who voted. BY this process of
eliminating only such names as are,
already, invalid many are left that
would probably, on critical exanina-
ton, have to be disregarded, even ur-
der the most liberal rules of evidence.
Inasmuch as the revocation petition
must be held insufficient because not
signed by a majority of those voting in
Ia .,it,, 10 lr,e{ II al ION,
1t becomes unnecessary to determine
many further questions raised by the
Defendants Among these Is the claim
that IS persons who signed the petit
ton, or a portion of them, subsequent
" withdrew their names. Another is
the contention that the whole matter
of the sufficiency of the petition was
decided in the police court and that
adjudication is binding on this court
in other cases. 1t is also unnecessary
to consider the various objections
made to the names appearing on par
ticular pages of the petition on ac-
count of defective jurats and the like.
All of these names are included in the
total of 2S99 above counted.
There remains for consideration the
claim of Mills that the defendant Hall
eren has not been conducting his sa-
loon in conformity with the mulct law.
1t is said the bond consent of ada
cent property owners, and list Of en-
ployes are defective. These papers de-
scribe the place where the business is
carried on by the lot and block num-
bers and also by the street number.
The number of the lot so given is in
correct, but the street number given
is the number of the building where
the saloon is located. The statute
does not require the property to be
described in any of these instruments.
126 Ia 537. The failure to describe
the premises at all would not have
rendered them defective or subjected
the defendant 10 any liability The
correct street number is given as q
part of the description and in the bond
and list of employees the property is
further referred to as being occupied
by the defendant. All property own
ers whose consent was necessary for
! the operation of saloon where it is in
| fact located signed the necessary
| statement of consent, which In terms,
! is consent to the operation of the
saloon on the premises as described by
both lot and street numbers 1t is
| claimed Hallgren permitted a drunk
ard to be in the saloon. The evidence
I shows the presence of a man of that
| character on one occasion. He bought
| no liquor was not known to be there
by the defendant or, SO far as appears,
by any employee of the defendant and
had been forbidden to come into the
place. He was not there by any per-
mission, express or implied. of the de-
1 PENDANT, but against his express com
nland and without his knowledge.
There is nothing in either Of these
matters to justify the granting Of a
temporary injunction against Hall
gren.
The applications Of the plaintiffs
and intervenors for temporary injunc-
lions will be denied in each of the
cases, and due exceptions to such
order preserved.
May II, 1909.
G. W. vermilion, Judge