The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1916-01-11
McManus Opens Case.

McManus Opens Case.
When County Attorney McManus
and Assistant Attorney General Rob
bins came into court carrying a num-.
Der Of law books, it was evident that
the case had resolved itself into
something more than just Formally.
1t meant that the fight was started
right in the superior court, and that
"a decision would be made only after
due consideration of the arguments
of the attorneys, by the court.
The county attorney said that the
on the morning of January 10 in Keo-
kuk. The claim was made that the
plaintiff had complied with the pro-
visions of the old mulct law. The de-
Tense put forth for the sale was. that
compliance with these provisions
meant exemption from prosecution.
The question arises whether the
mulct law is in effect, the county at
torney said.
'If the mulct law is repealed and
not in force and effect, then our de-
murrer will lie," the county attorney
stated.
How to Determine Fact.
He then went into the question in
detail as to how the court shall de-
termine this fact. The court, he
held, was bound to know that the
legislature had passed the bill known
as S. F. No. Z, and which was now
section 2448 A and 244S B of the sup
Elemental supplement to the code.
The county attorney declared that
this was now a part of the law of the
state and repealed the mulct law and
reinstated prohibition in Iowa. The
only question before the court then,
was whether or not the statute re-
pealed the mulct law.
The position of the state was that
the court must know of this act, not
from evidence submitted but from
judicial. knowledge. The court must
know il there was any defect in the
passage. The state commended that
no evidence could be submitted but
that the court must inquire into the
matter and with judicial knowledge
decide the momentous issue
1t was contended that the court
could not go behind the enrolled bill.
This was decided in an iowa case
cited by the attorney. II all of the
signatures were placed on the bill as
required by the constitution, then 1t
Is lllC DoWtl VI Tic SouA - " S>~s
that it was legally passed. One case
which was cited covered the question
of admission of evidence and held
that it would not be proper to admit
evidence If evidence is admitted 1t
must be only Of documentary nature,
to refresh the mind of the judge.
BaIIinger in Answer.
Attorney Ballinger, for Nickel, de-
clared that there could not be both
an answer and demurrer on file
He claimed that if the answer had
not been filed, then he asked for de-
fault. He characterized the tactics of
the state as a Fishing expedition to
find out what his reply would be-.
and accused them of using dilatory
tactics. He said they were using
double barrelled methods in this pro-
cedure. .s- r.
The attorney for the plaintiff held
that the state was trying by demur-
rer to come in and to bar them from
the relief afforded by a writ Of habeas
corpus. He challenged the finding of
any precedent for such a proceeding.
Can impeach Bill.
Mr.. Ballinger declared that an en-
crossed bill could be impeached and
that it had been done several times.
He said that when w. l.. Harding,
lieutenant governor, and president of
the senate, signed this bill in ques-
ton, he said he could point out TWEEN
ty-two discrepancies between the bill
passed and the one sent over from the
house, but there seemed to be no -
jections, and Mr.. Ballinger thought
this was not the time to argue the
matter.
as there no way to test the legal
ity of the act without the judge leav-
ing the bench and digging into the
matter, or can we bring in evidence"
Mr.. Ballinger asked.
"The Legislature violated the obi
CATION of contracts" Mr.. Ballinger
said, "in passing this bill. When we
got out the petition Of consent. the
supervisors found that it was suffi-
cient for five years. Will you take
judicial recognition Of this, or do you
require proof OF the action of the