The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1909-08-28
Extracts From Decision.

with given:
Extracts From Decision.
First. then. as to the fact ques-
tion- Was the defendant intoxicated
within the meaning of the law? The
court finds that he was, number of
times. after the taking effect of the
law, March 81. 1909. AS to some of
the occasions upon which it is claim
ed the defendant was intoxicated the
court has no doubt-as to others the
evidence for the state and the de-
fendant is more sharply in conflict
and it is more difficult to determine.
Defendant has had trouble in ona
way and another with some OF the
people of the town, some of whom are
witnesses against him. Their motives
are immaterial except in so far as
their feeling. IL any. against the de-
| PENDANT would affect their credibility
II should be said, however, that a
number OF witnesses called by the
state, were in the opinion of the court,
flNtc1-i<, 1AOl4 t4lCAi mdlAcE anu etp-
/ pearanee, unwilling and adverse &c
/ the state and friendly to the defend
ant For instance, some of the strong
] est witnesses against defendant as 10
| the livery barn transaction on March
i IS, 1909. were such.
The two witnesses to the picture
show transaction, April 80, 1909. were
/ and are now residents OF Marengo
not connected with the municipal oil
other troubles, and apparently disin
4 terested.
The testimony OF Mr.. Raney. de
/ PENDANTS own witness, a newspaper
man. president of the library associa
ton. and man of intelligence and
friendly to defendant, comes yer,
near. If it does not quite. make cut ;
case OF intoxication.
Defendant admits in his answer
that for many years he has Used in
toxicating liquor to about the sam,
extent He admits on the stand as ;
witness that it is and has been hi.
habit to drink whisky daily at hi
home and at other places with hi
friends whenever the occasion pre-
sents itself, and at other times whel
the opportunity offers The habit ma.
have been growing on hint doe
sometimes. AS to some of the trans
actors the undisputed evidence show
that ae was seen drinking whisky, hi
breath smelled OF whisky and his az
lions were described in detail-the
were the acts of a drunken or intox
Gated person. It is true that most c
the defendants witnesses, many c
them apparently men OF standing, se'
tify that they had known him IL
years and that they never saw hil
drunk. a number of these, howeve
testify that they did not see defent
ant at the times testified to by th
states Witnesses and they would n
say he was not intoxicated at sue
times. As 10 these witnesses tn
rule as to affirmative and negatiy
1 evidence should be applied-aflrr
/ alive evidence being the stronge
I But. after all, the testimony of tt
witnesses as TO intoxication depenf
| largely on the standard of the vi
nesses. Some of the witnesses won
not consider the man drunk unless
] was down in the ditch: others Won
say he was intoxicated If less und'
the influence of liquor.
4 while the question to intoxicati'
is fact, the proof of it is matter
I some extent at least So while 1t
1 unfortunate for the defendant, b
/ family ard friends and the communi
| that he is thus afflicted. the cou
must and does find that the defenda
/ was intoxicated. and that he was Sc
or found in state Of intoxication.
III far as the law is concerned 1t is vi
4 settled as TO what constitutes intoxit
! ton. 1t is not necessary perhaps
4 the court to make finding as to ca
l particular transaction in questit
I But the court finds defendant was
I toxicated on the dates before ms