Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1913-06-07
SALOON CASE IS
READY FOR APPEAL
JUDGE ANDERSON PERMITS VETS
TO GO TO SUPREME COURT
3. ON EVIDENCE.
MUST FILE COPY.
Drys VIII be Given Benefit Of Copy
Of Entire Evidence in the Case,
However, by Courts Rul-
ing This Morning.

The saloon consent petition, found
insufficient by the Wapello county dis
trict court in the January term, will
be appealed to the Iowa supreme court
by the vets on the Mongerson evil
dence alone. The vets, however, must
file with the clerk Of the district court
a correct copy of all the evidence In
the case for the use Of the drys II they
desire it. This was the substance Of
the finding made this morning by
Judge d. NJ Anderson. The attorneys
for the vets announced that the ap-
peal would be taken at once. The court
set ninety days as the limit Of time to
furnish the clerk Of the court with the
entire evidence.
If the supreme court reverses the
to his rule that L. A. MongeTson was
ton will be declared sufficient.
The finding Of Judge Anderson is a
victory for each side to the contro-
versy. The vets gain their point, that
OF appealing on only part of the evil
dence, and the drys were victorious in.
sofar that they do not have to bear the
cost of securing transcript of the en-
tire evidence.
WhItmore Opens Arguments.
Attorney G. w. Whitmore, chief
counsel for the drys, opened the argu-
ments. Mr., Whitmore contended that
the saloon lease was an equity action,
and as such it could not be taken -on
appeal to the supreme court unless all
the evidence was sent up. "The SUI
preme court" said the attorney, has
said that an action of this kind Is not
a law case, but it has not said that 1t
is not an equity case. 1t says that 1t
shall not be tried by jury. The court
has never held that an equity case can
be appealed on part of the evidence.
The saloon case was originally docket
PENDANTS made no effort to get 1t trans
ferred to the law docket. AS an equity
action, the case must go to the SUI
pTeme court complete and there tried
anew" %e
Mr. Whitmore cited numerous cases
and decisions of the supreme court
maintaining that the court could not
do otherwise than rule that the action
should be appealed on the whole evil
dence.
..r., Gilmore Differs.
The transcript of evidence already
secured by the vets was referred to at
the outset Of the remarks Of Attorney
M. G.. Gilmore, who said | it con-
tanned every syllable with reference to
l.. A. Mongerson. He said that the
vets contention was that the case was
neither law nor equity action, but
that it was a special proceedings. In
support of this contention, the attor.
|ney cited numerous cases wherein sa-
loon matters we're tried as special
proceedings.
There is presumption" said the
attorney, that the lower court is cor
rect on all points in case, and we
see no law requiring the entire evi-
dence being appealed. When the court
received the evidence, the matter OF
objections was passed on by the court
admitting all matter subject to objec-
tons. The court did not indicate then
that the case was an equity action,
and in fact there is nothing in the
pleadings from the side of the con.
testants that states equity except the
record entry following the completion
of the hearing" Mr.. Gilmore then de-
fined the three actions at law, civil
actions, law actions and criminal &C.
tons, and maintained that the saloon
case was special proceedings, as it
was covered by none of the other three
actions.
1.-THE supreme court" he concluded,
"presumes your honor is right in your
ruling, and they don't want to review
the entire proceedings. They simply
want to decide the portion on which we
maintain you are in error"
Color Of Jacket" Wrong7
Attorney Jaques could see no rea-
son why the contestants contended
that the saloon case was an equity &C
ton 'just because the clerk happened