The Portland daily press., 1869-01-29

I JANUARY TERM--GoDDARD, u, PREsIpINe
THURsDAY.-State vs. William Gore .t5s.si

/ o. JANUARY TERM--GoDDARD,J j., PREsIDING,
THURsDAY.-State VS.. William Gore. } i5a.aa
State VS.. Ralph Farr ir ti52 5.f -asa
n State VS.. George L. Creach and Hezekiah Means.
Three indictments for being common sellers at Free
port AT the request of defendants counsel the three
indictments are tried together. FarI is an apothe-
cary; the other parties traders in country stores
Creaeh aud Means were partners. The proof was
that all the parties had sold alec from their places
OF business No proof of any other liquor One
Witness shoemaker testified that he had purchased
OF Creach d. Means one half pint of alcohol TO bum
In spirit lamp to heat iron to make the edge of
BOOT and for that only. Another, physician tes-
titled that he bought alcohol of each of the parties
once of Gore, twice OF Creaet g. Means and four or
hve times OF the apohecary in every case for me-
dicinal purposes solely. l5i4 bed bul .Gs.H-oJ !
Mr. Strout contended that alcohol was not an in
toxicating liquor within the meaning of the statute
that it could not be drank in itspu state except by
persons with cast iron hroats that it closed the
phasus and produced sEasns that it was not reck-
oned IN commerce among liquors for drink; that it
was absolutely necessary for the compromising of
medicines, for the dissoving OF gums and fixed oils
that apotheearies cannot carry on their busine
Withoutit that is absolutely necessary in the arts
True, in its diluted form, it could be drank and
would intoxicate; SO would the Intoxicating fungus
OF Siberia; SO would hashesh; SO would opium; but
none OF these were embraced under the statute of
prohibition twas not like the case for the selling
of ale tried yesterday where the statue had enacted
that ale was an intoxicating liquor The statute had
not enacted that alcohol Intoxicating or probib
tied its sale thatit not in this case sold to drink
ing men nor for drinking purposes and was not sold
an intoxicating liquor. But eve if ovcrruied in
this, and the jury shall say it int oxicating
liquor the Government had failed to make out that
Selling alcohol was common and ordinary business
WIN them True under decisions, the jury were au-
iAeu' on proof of two sales with accompanying
-, to in er that man was common
"ut ohere was no proof here of any para
pnsiNr ~ u drinking shop. There was no circum-
stance Inc respondents were all n,ovod rosnosc.o
pie cluzens, OF good character and 4a5;,1 Tho
prosecution must have been brouuht 20 ,oo,,o tho
law odious. .rt.H Ill.,. IN SNs"'' W MAKE Tue
Mr. webb said it would be an insult to a.. 80.
argue the question whether alcohol was intoS;oa.:
1t was the very clement. the presence ~ 80
makes other liquors intoxicating. Ana in ,o,ona a.
other liquors the very question as to whether 49,
are intoxicating is settled by determining tba no.
centage Of alcohol which they contain, Alcohol ~;
luted with water till it can be drank is practca,,
the same thing rum. He assumed that alcohol
was intoxicating. To make man common seller
it was not necessary that that should be his chief
business; nor that he sold to all classes of men.
Liquor is only sold to certain class Of buyers: in
country store that class may be very small. and may
iol reasons of comfort tor prudential reasons be
very much restricted. The seller may refuse to sell
70 ee drunk to the ragged to loungers or to those
"No cannot be trusted with the secret; and yet ii