
    Stoneman v. Whaley.
    1. Intemperance : section not repealed. Section 15, of chapter 45, of the Laws of 1865 was not repealed by chapter 157 of the Laws of 1857.
    2. Same: sections repealed. A part of the first, and all of the third, fourth, and sixteenth sections of the act of 1855 were repealed by the act of 1857.
    
      Appeal from Allamakee District Court.
    
    Friday, October 21.
    The plaintiff sued on a note for twenty-one dollars, made by the defendant to Sherman & Wilson, dated February 19th, 1858, and due in sixty days after date, and endorsed to the plaintiff.
    The defendant answered that the note sued upon was given •for brandy and other intoxicating liquors, sold by the payee to him, in the State of Iowa, on or about the 1st of January, 1858, in violation of the “act for the suppression of intemperance,” being the statute of 1854-5, chapter 45, (Acts of 1855, page 58,) that the same was null and void. And he further avers that the note was indorsed to the plaintiff after maturity, and colorably and merely to evade the above act, and that it is still the property of the said Sherman & Wilson. To this answer the plaintiff demurred, for the reason that section 15 of the above act was not in force at the time of the execution and delivery of the note'. The court sustained the demurrer and rendered judgment for the plaintiff.
    
      Clark ‡ Clark, for the appellant.
    
      L. C. Hatch, for the appellee.
   Woodward, J.

Section fifteen of the act of 1855, above referred to, makes void all contracts and securities for tbe sale of intoxicating liquors.

This section was not repealed by the act of 28th of' January, 1857, (Acts 1857, page 231.) The prohibitory provisions of the act of 1855, remained in force — that of'1857 repealing a part of the first section, with the third, fourth, and sixteenth sections of the act of 1855. The effect of this repeal, and of the provisions of the act of' 1857, was principally, to change the enactments concerning obtaining a license to sell, taking this from county agents, and authorizing a larger number of persons to obtain it, and changing the manner of obtaining it. The sixteenth, and not the sixth section of the act of 1855 was repealed, and the word'“ sixth” in the first section of that of 1857, is an error, and should be the “sixteenth.”

The judgment of the court in sustaining the plaintiff’s demurrer to the defendant’s answer, and thereby holding that the act of 1857 repealed the fifteenth section of that of 1855, or that, for any other reason, this was not in force, was erroneous. The judgment will therefore be reversed, and the court will proceed upon the replication filed subject to the demurrer.

Reversed.  