Case Name: The State of Iowa, Appellee, v. Edward Farley, Appellant
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1893-01-17
Citations: 87 Iowa 22
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State of Iowa, Appellee, v. Edward Farley, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 87
Pages: 22–25

Head Matter:
The State of Iowa, Appellee, v. Edward Farley, Appellant.
1. Criminal Law: troop op venue. Where an indictment charged that the crime was committed in the county oí Buena Vista, of which there was no direct proof, hut there was evidence sufficient to show that the crime was committed at Storm Lake, the county seat of Buena Vista county, held, that the venue was sufficiently established, since the jury were authorized to take notice of the fact that Storm Lake is in Buena Vista county.
2. Witnesses: requirement to answer. Where a witness answers evasively, and the question is repoated for the purpose of eliciting a more definite answer, the court may properly command him to answer.
3. Evidence: hearsay. A party can not be heard to object to the exclusion of the testimony of a witness who has no knowledge of the matters inquired of, except such as he has learned from the party calling him.
4. Intoxicating Liquors: nuisance: evidence. In a prosecution for a liquor nuisance, where the evidence showed no actual sales by the defendant, but did show that his customers drank beer which he delivered to them, and that a large number of-beer bottles, many of them full of beer, and two kegs of whiskey were found upon his premises, and that he was not authorized to sell such liquors, held, that those facts raised a presumption' of guilt, and, in the absence of evidence satisfactorily rebutting such presumption, justified a verdict of guilty.
Appeal •from Buena Vista JDisb-iet Court. — Hon. Lot Thomas, Judge.-
Tuesday, January 17, 1893.
The defendant was accused and convicted of the crime of nuisance, committed by owning and keeping in a building intoxicating liquors, with intent to sell them in violation of law. From a judgment imposing a fine of four hundred dollars and costs, he appeals.
Affirmed.
T. D. Riggs and Frank J. Brown, for appellant.
John Y. Stone, Attorney General, R. F. Galpin, County Attorney, and Thomas A. Cheshire, for the state.

Opinion:
Robinson, C. J.
I. The indictment charged that the defendant committed the crime of which he was convicted in the county of Buena Vista, an(j state of Iowa, but it is said that the evidence failed to show where the crime was committed. There was no direct evidence on that point, but the trial took place in Storm Lake, the county seat of Buena Vista county. The defendant was a resident of that town, and carried on business in it. There were numerous statements in the testimony of different witnesses which tended to show that the offense for which the defendant was on trial was committed in his place of business in the town where the trial was in progress. There was no apparent controversy in regard to the place of the crime. The evidence was sufficient to show that it was in Storm Lake, and the jury were authorized to take notice of the fact that Storm Lake was in Buena Vista county. State v. Laffer, 38 Iowa, 422, 426.
II. The appellant claims that the trial judge was guilty of an abuse of discretion in directing him to answer a question which it is said he had already answered several times. The remark of the court to which objection is made is not pointed out, but all we find in the record to which the description of counsel can refer is a direction of the court in words as follows:' "Just' answer his question now." It appears that the defendant had been asked several questions, which he had answered evasively, and the' answer which caused the court to make the remark quoted was of an evasive character. The court was justified in saying what it did by the conduct of the defendant,- and he evidently thought so at the time, as he made no objection then to what was said.
III. An officer who searched the premises occupied by the defendant found thereon two kegs of whiskey.' The defendant testified that one of them belonged to a' man named Peterson, and that the. other was for his own private-use. Peterson was called in as a witness, but was not permitted to answer certain • questions asked by the defendant in regard to the ownership of the liquor, and the means by which it. had .been procured. It appears that the only knowledge of the matters to which the questions were directed which Peterson had was derived from statements -made to him by .the defendant.- The answers in question were, therefore, incompetent and properly excluded.
IV. The defendant, at the time he was alleged to have committed the offense -of which he was convicted, was -keeping a billiard -hall- in- Storm Lake. It is said that the evidence failed- to show that he sold,' or kept-with intent to sel-1, in violation of law, intoxicating liquor. It is true that no actual sales of such liquor are shown to have been made, but the' evidence tended to show that his customers drank beer which he had delivered to them,-and a-large number of beer bottles, (many, of which were full of beef) and -two kegs of whiskey were found in his premises. He was not authorized to sell such liquor, and the finding of them in his place of business was presumptive evidence that they were kept for sale, in violation of law. Section 8, chapter 66, Acts Twenty-first General Assembly. The testimony of the defendant given to rebut that presumption was evasive and unsatisfactory, and the jury were fully justified in finding that the liquors were kept for an illegal purpose.
We have examined the entire record with care, but do not find any error prejudicial to defendant. The judgment of the district court is afeibmed.