facts shown by the record, t conclude that there is !lin entire absenceof testimony of the commission of any fraud or evasion of the laws of the United States, or of any such wrong on the part of the defendants as to justify the court in granting the relief prayed for in this bill. Let there be a decree in favor of the defendants.
WALBR v. WOLF et ale
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Minnesota. October 25, 1890.)
PLEADING-COMPLAINT-DESCRIPTION 011' PLACE.
In an action for personal ipjudes reoeived by a ohUd while plapng with a detonating oap uSed to explode dynamite, an allegation in the oomplamtthat defendant deposited the oaps on the premises ofplaintiff's father, at a designated number and street, suffioiently describes the place, without stating specifically on what part of t.he uremises the oapswere deposited..
At Law. Motion for new trial. Erwin &; Wellington, for plaintiff. Davi8, Kellogg &; Severance, for defendant. NELSON, J. I find nothing in this case that would justify me in granting themot:on for a new trial. Defendants' negligence was found by the jury to be the proximate. cause of the injury QOPlplained of.. The defendant's 'could not been misled by the allegation in the complaint. It wa.snot necessary to aver any more specifically the place oli the premises of plaintiff's father where the fulminating <japs were piaced. Witnesses were introduced by defendants, and a map to show that the water-pipes were not piled up or located on the alleged premises. There was conflict of evidence, and the jury fonndagainst the.'defendants upon the weight of plaintiff's testimony. The case was fairly tried, and the law correctly 'given. The tenth request was properly modified; The newly-discovered evidence is cumulative, and not sufficient to warrant a new trial. It is true, as counsel states, that new t.rials are granted in the discretion of the court, but such discretion must be a legal one; and, when no satisfactory legal reason can be urged in favor of the motion for a new trial, it must be overruled. Such is my duty on' this application. Motion denied.
KOHl'l II. MELCHEB.
(04n'cuft Oourt, S. D.
CONTRACTS-VALIDITy-PuBLIC POLICy-INTOXICATING LIQUOR.
Where liquor is sold to a pharmacist for the express purpose of enabling him to retail it as a beverage, in violation of law, the price of such liquor cannot be recovered by SUit, even though the Rale itself was not illegal.
INTOXICATING LIQUOR-CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE.
Code Iowa, § 1550, which provides that payments made for intoxicating liquor sold in violation of the prohibitory law shall be deomed to have been made upon a promise of repayment, does not apply to payments made by a registered pharmacist for liquor intended to be sold by him contrary to law, and which he purchases in the original packages from a resident of another state. .
At Law. fendant.
Action on notes and counter-claim.
Wright, Baldwin &: Haldane, for plaintiffs. Lehmann &: Park, RockafeUow &: Scott, and WiUard &: Fletcher, for deBHrnAs, J. In this cause the parties waived a jury, and submitted' the case to the court. The evidence shows the.following facts: (1) The firm of Kohn & Adler, plaintiffs herein, are now, and for years past have been, engaged in the business of selling spirituous liquors at wholesale; the headquarters thereof being established at Rock Istaud. Ill., of which state the plaintiffs are now, and have been for years, citizens. (2) 'fhedefendant, during the peri!ld of time involved in this case, has been 8 resident of Atlantic, Cass county, Iowa, engaged in the drug business, holding a permit from the coul1ty'authoritiesto sell spirituous liquors for medicinal, culinary, and sacramental purposes. (3) That the defendant, under cover of his permit to sell for legal purposes, has been engaged in the business of selling intoxicating liquors aea beverage. in quantities to suit purchasers, or, in other words, has been practically run. ning a saloon'in connection with his business as a druggist: the liquors sold being drunk on defendant's premises, or carried away, at the option of the purchasers. (4) Since June 25, 1884, plaintiffs have sold and delivered to defendants spirituous liquors to the amount of $3.840.80, upon which defendant has paid the sum of$2,959.70, leaVing a balance due on December 1,1885, of $8t:l7.10; which is partly evidenced by three promissory notes,-two bearing date September 15, 1885, for $124.25 each, and the third bearing date September 20, 1885, by defendant, and payable to order of plaintiffs. (5) The liquors thus sold were contracted for and delivered as follows: Every few weeks Edward Kohn, one of the plaintiffs, would visit defendant's, place of business at Atlantic, Iowa, and defendant would then and there contract with him for the purchase of such liquor!) as he then needed. The liquors so purchased would from time to time be forwarded from Rock Island, Ill., to Atlantic, Iowa, by rail, being delivered to the railway company at Rock Island, Ill. (6) The paymeIjts made upon the aecount were usually made at Atlantic, Iowa, to Edward Kohn in person, although in some instances the sums paid were rt'mittea by letter to plaintiff at Hock Island. Ill. (7) Edward Kohn, and,t/lrough him, his said firm, plaintiffs herein, knew that defendant was engaged in selling the liquors furnished him in the manner already stated. . (8) The defendant, in making the monthly reports to the county auditor of: