Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1910-06-24
Holds Consent Valid.

| - WIZ NC, III OtGet tIdt me t4!SHe!
court may pass on the point involved in
the case
4 Holds Consent Valid.
( While not saying 50 Judge Parker $
( nnding virtually establishes the ques-
ton that the petition OF consent clrcu-
lated in 1900 is valid, and that il was
not invaldated by the taking in of ad
di,ioaaI territory by the city council
in 1905. This was the point on which
the contest Was based, after the anti
saloon league mad given up the fight
on the revocation. The court says, il
MS opinion, that he can not agree with
tie anti saloon league attorney that the
privilege TO sell liquors in this city was
abrosated by bringing into the city
certain additions
A New Point Raised.
The point involved has never been
passed on by the supreme court, the
case most nearly parallel 10 il that the
lawyers have been able 10 find being
what IS known as the Dickinson county
case. The supreme courts decision in
this action is covered in full in the
Judge Parker's ruling.
The defense OF the saloonists' attor-
neys was that the extension of the
citys limits did not abrogate any right
or privilege 70 sell intoxicating liquors
and that the suficiency OF the mulct
petition Of consent had been recognized
by the state and the local court.
The ruling OF Judge Parker as filed
il he case Is as follows:
Statement Of the Case.
In February, 1900, the sale Of intox
icating liquor was legalized in the city
Of Marshalltown b. a decision of the
board Of supervisors Of Marshall coun-
y, based upon petition Of general
consent signed by q majority Of the
legal voters Of said city The petition
was signed BY majority OF seventy
three.
The defendant. John zundt. is now
/ operating saloon under said petition
Of general consent
The plaintiff, c. c. Milhiser. asks that
Ln,.l the case can be tried upon its
merits that g temporary writ of in
junction issue 70 restrain the defend
ant Zuncc from operating his saloon,
based upon two grounds:
First, that the petition Of general
consent has been abroga;ed by Z recall
or petition Of revocation signed by
d majority Of the legal voters Of said
city, and
Second. that the petition of general
consent was abrogated BY the city
council Of said city N extending the
ci.y limits in the year 1903. That this
extension took in certain Inhabitants
not in the city when the petition of
general consent was signed. That
among the inhabitants SO taken in were
certain legal voters who were not given
an opportunity To express themselves
as to the sale of intoxicants However,
it is not claimed that the number of
legal voters so taken in equals the ma
jority of seventy three upon the pc
tition of general consent.
After the hearing had proceeded for
short time plaintiffs attorneys with
drew the recall or petition Of revoca-
ton, as insufficient, for the reason that
1t was not signed by majority Of the
legal voters of said city in form and
manner as provided by law BY this
Withdrawal of the petition of revoca-
ton the case is made to turn upon one
point, to-wit: Did the extensions of
the city limits abrogate the privilege
Of selling intoxicants within the city?
The necessity for the withdrawal Of
the petition of revocation is to be re-
GREETED, for by it the law gives the
people plain and direct power to pro-
hibit the sale of intoxicants in their
midst. The law is that the people
give or take away the privilege of SELL
ing intoxicants, as they see fit.
The Defenses.
First that the extension of the city
limits would not impair or abrogate
any right, privilege, franchise, or lie
ense conferred by the general law or
the ordinances of the city; that all such
rights would remain in full force and
effect after such extension. Plaintiffs
attorneys admit the general PROPOSE
ton, that all such rights or privileges
would so remain in full force except
the privilege of selling intoxicants.
Second, that the law specially pro-
vides the methods by which petitions
of general consent may be abrogated,
and that the revocation must be in
accordance with this method, and not
otherwise. That the extension Of the
city limits is not one Of the methods
provided by law. In support of this
proposition the defendants cite the fol-
lowing authorities, among others, code
section 2451, Rink VS.. Bollinger 1923 n.
w. r. 1873.
Third, that since the extension Of the
city limits the petition OF general con-
sent has been treated and recognized
as being in full force and effect in
various judicial proceedings. both civil
and criminal, IN the district. court Of
Marshall county and in the supreme
court of the state of Iowa In these
leo he 10, n 81 f~k&