Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1913-08-04
COURT ovERRUlEs PETITION ron
ANOTHER TRIAL ON SALOON
coNsENr.
APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
NOW ONLY HOPE OF "WErs"
Several Clerical Errors Corrected by
Court But Petition Of Consent 10 Held
to Be Four Names Short Of Required
Numbsr-PoII Books Held to Be Only
EVIDENCE Of Legality Of sisner.

SNN8c o0AA4leaAA . ISS46SU VcClSlOh
was received Saturday afternoon and
filed with the clerk Of the court. The
motion by the proponents Of the petit
ton for new trial was overruled. but
the court corrects clerical errors. This
correction. however. does not mater
tally affect the former decision. He
finds still that the statement Of con-
sent Is insufficient, tho no plurality Of
cision the saloon men lacked six names
Of majority.
Appeal Now Only Hope.
All. that Is now left for the saloon
men is to appeal from Judge Dun
hams decision. It viii take q year
before this appeal will be decided, and
unless a new petition Is circulated fol-
lowing the municipal election next
March. which petition must pass mus
ter before the county board and the
court, Waterloo will be without sa-
looms for at least another year. Some
of the saloon men are firing Of the
expense necessary to procure . state
ment Of consent. One saloon man says
he has spent and lost in business fully
$4,000. All Of the twenty-six have
spent about $1,000 each in efforts to
procure the petition. in defending it
before the board and in the courts, and
In loss Of rents.
Tho corrected opinion Of Judge Dun
ham in part is as follows:
1.-The court has considered the mo-
ton for new trial and amendment
thereto and petition for modification
of decree. filed by proponents and the
condemnation flied by contestants.
the former asking for new trial, and
each asking that alleged specified
errors in original decision be corrected
by the court by modification Of such
decision, and being fully advised in
presentation Of said motion and argu-
ment Of counsel finds there has been
no sufficient grounds shown for grant
ing new trial. II. as contended by
the parties. errors have occurred in not
allowing petition sufficient credit to
either Of the parties to the case, in
Improperly counting names for or
against one or the other Of tho par
ties, or IL the court has erred in mat
ter Of law in the canvassing Of the
statement Of consent. these errors can
~
as 1t stands. and II either party feels
that the court is fistalen In its final
Judgment, the right Of appeal to a
higher and wiser court IL theirs. No
showing il made that the record. in
the event Of a new trial. would be ma
terially different from that now in the
case. and this being the fact. the mo-
ton for new trial Is overruled.
Poll Books Only Evidence.
1.-THE proponents contend that this
court erred in rejecting so-called nc
titious names. The law IL that the
poll books are to be taken as the sole
and exclusive evidence as to who
voted at the election. This has been
50 held by the supreme court and that
holding is not in the opinion Of this
court overruled or in any way modified
by the Taft VS.. Snouffer case, wherein
the supreme court claimed that the
facts were admitted and conceded
and which are in this case denied by
contestants. all testimony objected to
and such objections sustained by the
court
1.-The original decision will be modi-
fed, as above indicated and 1t now ap-
pears that less than majority Of the
persons who voted at the November,
1912. election In the city Of Waterloo,
consented to the sale OF intoxicating
liquor therein by the statement Of con-
sent canvassed, the statement IL held
insufficient and the original judgment
IN said matter will stand as the judg.
ment of the court"