The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1915-08-24
Relief 1. Denied,

Relief IL Denied.
The law is said also to deny de-
PENDANT relief as prescribed. That 1t
allows issuance of restraining order
upon presentation by anv person or
association of an unverified petition,
without hearing, proof or bond: how
the evidence shall be presented is left
to within and caprice Of complainant"
that the law denies defendant right
to test suficiency of plaintiffs petit
ton. by providing that he answer be-
fore three days; that 1t deprives de
PENDANTS OF property: that fine of $500
is provided for without presentment
or indictment by grand jury.
The law provides that owner or
any person having right, title or in
terest may be adiHiged guilty under
law and fined without indictment; but
upon petition of irresponsible or ma
liciously inclined person, without OPP
portunity to attack sufficiency OF COM
plant, upon evidence of general repu-
tation OF place, although defendant
was not in charge Of or on the prem
ises, or interested In business. but
had leased property In good faith and
did not know nuisance was being con.
Quoted
At Mercy Of sca'awaas.
The law is said to place property
owners at mercy o. any irresponsible
scalawag: that it permits the trial
and imposition of heavy fines upon
hearsay testimony only. The law Is
criminal, and is 80 titled The law Is
said to permit heavy fines to be Inn
posed upon testimony showing that
the place had bad name.
The act seeks to destroy or have
sold personal property now in. around
or about the building in which the
alleged nuisance Is maintained En-
forcemert of the provisions of act
would deprive right of mortgage IN
good faith on household fixtures and
other property in building.
In Darden Case.
A demurrer attacking the constitu-
tionaIity of the Cosson law. and
couched in similar terms, but made to
fit the case of the keeper of the al
legged disorderly house. has been fled
in the case Of Vernie Darden by her
attorney. In this demurrer, several
portions OF the demurrer in the Kief-
er case have been embodied.
| IL Is CldlInSu tudL Tie sIdCLS SCdIcu
| in the plaintiffs petition do not en-.
| title the plaintiff to the relief demand
ed because the law is contrary to the
constitution, because the law pro.
vides that in any prosecution brought
| hereunder to enioin an alleged NUS
ance, evidence OF the general reputa
ton of the place sought to be en-.
Joined shall be admissible for the pur.
pose of proving the existence of a
nuisance thus providing that one may
be enjoined and practically convicted
on evidence only of owning or oc
cupying the place having the reputa
| ton Of being such a nuisance as sci
ont and described in the statute" I
/ It IS claimed to be unconstitutional
because it takes away the right te
jury trial and because it deprives per
sons of liberty and property withou,
! due process of law.
| No judicial Determination.
Further nconstitutionality of the
law is alleged because sit provides
for declaring as a nuisance, that
which is not a nuisance in fact and
provides no method for tho ludicia
determination as to whether or moi
the various properties which may be
siezed under the provisions of the
act, are in fact nuisances.' That il
| imposed penalties without Judicial
determination, is another reason Civ
en- why the law should De said to be
! invalid.
| It is further claimed that each sec
ton is violative of and repugnant to
] fVtio Of ho cfot of