The Windham County reformer. (Battleboro, Vt.) 1876-1897, 1895-11-22
BRATTL LEBoRO VERMONT, FRIDAY NOVEMBER 20. 1895.
THE pRoHIBIToRy RAID.

THE PROHIBTTORY RAID.
Eddy H. Co. POunced Upon Yesterday
Must Go 10 Marlboro to Defend
Hearing in r. C. Gales Case Stature
day.
Yesterday Sheriff Starkey and Officer
C. G.. Turner made q raid on G. H.
Eddy a. Co, manufacturers Of the hop
beer about which, and whether it
comes within the law, there has been so
much dispute. They secured three or
four kegs and about as many cases Of
the beer which were duly transported
to the lookup IN the machine shop
building, The complaint, under which
the raid was made, was signed by
Chas. +. Estabrook, and the order for
tho search and seizure by Edwin p.
Adams, justice OF the peace at Marl-
boro, before whom and at which place
the writ is returnable tomorrow.
Supposedly this action is in pur-
suance OF threats that have been made
ever since the raid on the billiard
rooms and Estabrooks & Gale two
weeks ago. Eddy Il Co., with their
manufacture Of sodas, gingers, essences
and other beverages, as well as this
hop beer. are tenants Of the Holden a.
Martin building on Flat street, of
which Hon. J. L. Martin is part own
er, and the purpose is ultimately to
reach him in retaliation for his action
as counsel for the village in the prose
cution of the billiard room proprietors,
and Estabrook l. Gale. The search and
seizure process may be made the first
step under the nuisance act' to close
a place as a nuisance, but it only
means the room or tenement or pre-
misses actually occupied by the illegal
business and of course the only effect
in this case, should the action prevail,
would be to close the quarters occu-
pied by Eddy & Co., which could be
Immediately reopened on giving bonds
not to engage in the business again.
At most it could only drive Eddy Il
Co. out of the hop beer business.
Whether the action will prevail is
still question. The thing was fought
out in two trials against Harry Pratt
at Newfane, one resulting in dis
agreement of the jury and the other,
before the court, IN verdict for the
respondent But the issue was not en- :
tirely Gear, because there was some
evidence that the witness who claimed
to have got drunk on the Eddy beer
had also drank whiskey. The analyses
of the beer show a percentage of alco-
hol all the way from (, per cent. when
fresh to per cent. and fraction
when older. The state claimed in the
Pratt case that there was malt in
it and it came under the statute
about ''malt liquors. no matter about
the alcohol percentage. Both Eddy Il
Co. and dealers who handle the beer
are required to pay the federal license
as malt liquor Dealers and the Yer
mont law makes that prima facie evil
dence Of violation.
There was hearing Saturday in the
case against the 43 kegs Of beer seized
a fortnight age at c. y Estabrook 4
Co.'S cold storage rooms ON Flat street.
Fred G. Gale appeared as claimant to
it, and was represented by County
Solicitor Wason OF Nashua. N. IL. The
first legal battle was over the call by
the claimants for jury trial. Mr..
Martin for the state claimed that
none should be allowed and read from
q decision in the 35th Vermont, where
a druggist had had liquor seized and
claimed that he kept ii only forss legal
purposes and where the court held that
Intoxicating liquor is 'outlawed for the
state to smite wherever found. Mr..
Wason suggested, more or less vaguely,
that question to be raised here was
whether this was in fact Intoxicating
liquor. But the court denied jury.
The strongest point the defense scould
have made az to the rights of inter
state commerce was not even suggest
ed by Mr.. Wason. The federal supreme
court decided that where liquor is
imported into one state from another
and remains in its original package,
it is interstate commerce., and does not
cease to be interstate commerce until
it has been sold and as such its regu-
lation belongs to congress. After
wards congress passed the Edmunds
bill delegating to the states the right
to regulate under their police powers
the traffic" in such liquors even in
the original packages. aBut in this
case the claim was that the beer was
imported from Massachusetts for sale
in New Hampshire only, and was in
Vermont only for cold storage-in
transit, in effect. Without inqulring
into what the facts might develop with
regard to this claim, why wasn't there
a good chance for argument that the
storage was not a traffic" such as the
state is empowered to interfere with.
But Mr.. Wason. though brought
here with the claim that he was lone
of the sharpest criminal lawyers in
New Hampshire made no fight on
this ground. In fact he made no fight
worthy of the name whatever. or
in not being familiar with our statutes
and practise, and he was no match for
such legal fighter as Martin anyway.
The claimants would h I'VE done much
better to have employed Brattleboro
lawyer. At the next trial it is said
that they are to have Maloney from
Rutland.
Mr.. Wason put Fred C.. Gale on the
stand to testify that he owned the beer
which the firm of Estabrook Il Co.
consisting of himself and Chas. +.
Estabrook, kept in cold storage for
him, to be delivered as he wanted to
sell at his brewery in New Hampshire
of which Frank Turner was the man
ager. This gave Martin chance for
cross examination and it resulted in
extracting from Gale. though against
a storm of protests from his counsel
which the court regularly overruled.
information which for awhile promised
to yield an abundant crop of prosecu-
tions. Gale said the firm of Estabrook
Il Co. was formed to handle light
drinks but had not got the right ones
yet and had done little but the cold
storage business. He denied that they
sold this beer at all. but admitted
that they did bottle washing for the
hrevpry He gave unoer cOmpillsion