The Southwestern Reporter Volume 234 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1922 Excerpt: ...right to resume their business during any of this period. The penalty imposed deprives the appellees of the pursuit of their business for a period of two weeks, whether they might desire to offer milk for sale in compliance with the ordinance or not There Is no condition prescribed to the effect that, if they conform-to the requirements of law, they may continue their business. The arbitrary fiat is that for a period of two weeks they are "cut off," regardless of whether their milk may be offered for sale and distributed In compliance with or in violation of the ordinance during that period; in other words, this is the punishment imposed by Adams for conduct which he has determined to be in violation of law. (234 S.W.) Such we conceive to be the acts and conduet which appellant has sought to defend and uphold. Appellant comes into court in response to the application for an injunction to restrain the further pursuit of such course and says, in effect, that, although punishment has thus been imposed upon appellees in an considered as authority for our guidance in this case. The nature of the business interfered with in those cases is wholly distinct from the nature of the business pursued by the appellees in this case. The operations interfered with in the instance of each of those cases were in their nature criminal and permeated with turpitude. In the Missouri case supra the police were arresting persons in a club. The proprietor sought an injunction in his own behalf. As unauthorized manner, yet, appellant, after said by the court in the course of the having circumvented appellees' right of trial as prescribed by law and after having imposed upon them a penalty depriving them of their property without due course of the law of the land, will now...