Maloney v. Traverse
Supreme Court of Iowa
Certiorari to Wapello District Court. The plaintiffs at the suit of William Drake, were enjoined from maintaining a liquor- nuisance on certain premises.
Read the full summary
Certiorari to Wapello District Court. The plaintiffs at the suit of William Drake, were enjoined from maintaining a liquor- nuisance on certain premises. The injunction was issued January 14,1888. On the twenty-eighth day of March, 1892, contempt proceedings were instituted for a violation of the injunction, and on the fourth day of April, 1892, the plaintiffs were attached, and brought before the court, and a hearing set for April 9, 1892. On the day set for the hearing, an application for a postponement or continuance was presented and denied. The cause was then tried, and a judgment…
1Opinion of the CourtGranger, J.
i. liquob mií-tionfóon-11110 tempt: pros-eoution by counsel. I. As appears in the statement of facts, the injunction proceedings were with William Blake as plaintiff, and with the- plaintiffs herein as defendants. In that proceeding ___T ° the firm or W ork & Blake were employed ag attorneys, and prosecuted the suit. The firm also appeared in behalf of the state in the contempt proceeding, and from the examination there it appears that the firm appeared at the instance of .the “Law and Order League,” neither of them being the public prosecutor under the law, nor prosecuting the case at his…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. OrmistonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1885
- State v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of Iowa · 1878
- State v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Iowa · 1885
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. McGinnisSupreme Court of Iowa · 1976
- State ex rel. Martin v. BradleyNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1901