The Oskaloosa herald. (Oskaloosa, Mahaska County, Iowa) 1885-1919, 1911-06-15
80 +f++ +++i. I.f+
IOWA SUPREME ~
COURT DECISIONS.

&
Des Moines, June ,10.-The supreme
court this morning handed down the
following opinions:
Burke, appellant, VS.. Berry; Polk
district Affirmed.
Gilchrist & Company VS.. City of
Des Moines, appellant; Polk District.
Affirmed. ...,
Daley VS.. Daley; Polk County.
Modified and affirmed. ~
Ogden VS.. Healey, appellont; Ger
rogorda district. Reversed.
Hester VS.. Hester; Butler district.
Reversed.
Fredericks VS.. Fort Dodge Brick &
Tile Co.; Webster district. Revers.
| ed.
The Iowa supreme court has re.
| fused to reconsider it's decision in
the Moon law case whereby many
saloons throughout the state are fore,
ed to go out of business. The re.
cent decision made illegal the licens.
es obtained by saloon men after the
| governor had signed the bill, and
before July 4, when they believed the
law would become effective. The
court held the law was effective when
the governor signed. The Nom law
provides that there shall be but one
saloon to each 1000 inhabitants of
any city.
The supreme court ir the case of
Sawyer VS.. Frank and Richardson
delivered a broadside against the
practice of hundreds of cafes in Iowa
of permitting walters to bring in IL
quor for patrons of the cafe.
The supreme court declares this is
absolutely a violation of the law and
makes the owner of the cafe or res.
| taurant in which such practice is per-
mitted guilty of maintaining a liquor
nuisance and subject to punishment
for such.
The case brings out this sweeping
opinion of the high court in a test
case from Sioux City, brought by H.
II. Sawyer against l.. H. Frank and
Eliza A. Richardson.
The action was tried in the Wood
bury district court on an agreed state
ment of facts. The stipulation be-
tween the parties to the suit was that
Frank operated a restaurant in Sioux
City, that persons eating in his place
of business were in the habit of Sc
curing liquor through the walters, the
latter taking the money from the pat
irons, going to nearby saloon, pur-
chasing the liquor, then serving it to
the guest in the cafe.
In the first place it was contended
by attorneys for Frank that he took
no part whatever in the transaction
whereby guests in his cafe secured
the liquor. 1t was claimed that the
waiter who secured the liquor was
the agent of the guest in so doing,
therefore the cafe proprietor was not
liable.
The supreme court disagrees with
the attorneys on this point The high
court says the agent idea is no good.
and suggests that if a waiter should
abscond with money given him with
which to purchase liquor, that the
guest would surely hold the walters
employer responsible. The supreme
court says that the liquor laws of the
state specifically provide that no per-
sons shall sell, barter, trade, or dis
pense liquor except under the pro-
visions of the mulct law of the state
The mulct law specifically forbids
traffic in liquor in eating houses. The
supreme court says that the word
dispense" in this law covers the case
Of the cafes exactly. A cafe proprie-
tor is dispensing liquor, the opinion
says, when he permits his walters to
go outside and secure liquor for
guests.