Case Name: Valentine Madalozzi, Petitioner, v. D. M. Anderson, Judge, Respondent
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1926-06-21
Citations: 202 Iowa 104
Docket Number: 
Parties: Valentine Madalozzi, Petitioner, v. D. M. Anderson, Judge, Respondent.
Judges: De Graef, C. J., and Stevens and Vermilion, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 202
Pages: 104–106

Head Matter:
Valentine Madalozzi, Petitioner, v. D. M. Anderson, Judge, Respondent.
June 21, 1926.
Miller & Everett, for petitioner.
Theodore B. Perry, County Attorney, for respondent.

Opinion:
Faville, J.
The petitioner rested under a permanent injunction, restraining him from the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors. A large still, with other paraphernalia and ingredients used in the manufacture of intoxicating liquors, was discovered in a cave on a farm some ten miles distant from the petitioner's home, in an adjoining county. The petitioner is an Italian, and in the cave, among other things, was discovered a newspaper printed in Italian, and addressed to the petitioner. The farm upon which the cave was discovered was adjacent to an unfrequented road. There was evidence tending to show that, shortly prior to the discovery of the cave, the petitioner had been frequently seen traveling on the road which leads in the direction of said farm. The petitioner was also seen, a number of times shortly before the search of the cave, by members of the family that lived upon the adjoining farm, in the immediate vicinity of said farm. The record also tends to show that his visits in that locality ceased after the discovery and search of the cave.
This action is in certiorari, and is not triable de novo in this court.
It is not necessary, to sustain a conviction of contempt, that the proof establish the same beyond a reasonable doubt. Nies v. Jepson, 174 Iowa 188; Nies v. Anderson, 179 Iowa 326; State v. Mullan, 185 Iowa 794; Bird v. Sears, 187 Iowa 75; Kochen v. District Court of Woodbury County, 198 Iowa 1.
The sole contention of the petitioner is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain tbe order of tbe court punishing tbe petitioner for contempt. Tbe evidence in tbe case is sueb tbát'we cannot bold that tbe action of tbe trial court in finding tbe petitioner guilty of contempt was illegal and unwarranted. Tbe order of-tbe lower court bas substantial and adequate support in tbe record. Direct proof is not essential. Tbe violation of tbe injunction may- be shown by circumstantial evidence.
Tbe writ of certiorari is therefore ordered annulled, and tbe order of tbe district court is in all respects — Affirmed.
De Graef, C. J., and Stevens and Vermilion, JJ., concur.