Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1897-12-17
A 'UNo" BEER CASE
Suit of the suffolk Brewing Company
Against T. Frank Turner TO Recover

suit Of the suffolk Brewing Company
Against T. Frank Turner TO Recover
sI2O.
The Suffolk Brewing company of Boston
were the plaintiffs and T.. Frank Turner
the defendant in a suit before Justice 5.
II. Sherman Monday and Tuesday The
suit was to recover 1920 and interest for
40 half barrels of "Uno' beer which the
brewing company furnished Mr.. Turner in
1895. The plaintiff claimed that while Mr..
Turner was proprietor of one of the brew
cries on the island they shipped him 40
half barrels of "Unon beer upon receipt of
telegraphic orders from him and that they
had never received pay for it. Turner
claimed that the bill was for F.C Gale topay
and that he was acting as agent for Gale
He claimed that about three months before
the beer was bought Gale was in Boston
and told the agent of the brewing com
pany that he wanted some nOn-intoXtcat-
ing beer which would stand the test of the
Vermont prohibitory law. The salesman
informed him that "Unon beer was non
intoxicating and would stand the test.
Gale afterward bought several lots of the
beer and later he went away and left Tur-
ner to manage the business.
Turner sold the beer TO Brattleboro sa-
| loon keepers and when the general raid
was made in 1895 it was seized, condemned
as intoxicating and destroyed. Because OF
that fact the defendant held that the con-
tract had been violated and that neither he
nor Gale could be held for payment. The
/ plaintiff admitted that the order was for
/ Misunderstanding beer but they also claimed
| that "Uno' beer was Notwithstanding.
4 4 4 4
/ bottled the beer, that he knew its contents
and that he had never found fault with its
/ quality until this suit was brought.
| Druggist Chaplin analysed samples Of the
| beer at the time Of the seizure and found
! it to contain three per cent of alcohol. Drs.
/ COnland and Gale testified that they should
consider beer containing three per cent OF
/ alcohol intoxicating. Waterman, Martin
d Hit appeared for the plaintiffs and c.
/ {. Fits for the defendant
Justice Sherman rendered his decision
/ yesterday morning. After giving a brief
statement of the case the decision says
According TO the testimony of Geo. b.
/ Smith, the assistant manager OF the brew
/ cry. the contract for the sale OF this beer
J was made wholly within the state Of Mas
sachusetts and therefore enforceable
against the defendant. The plaintiff
claimed in answer to interrogations that
"Uno' beer was Notwithstanding and
that they so represented 1t 10 all parties TO
whom they sold il. but at the same time
disclaiming all knowledge as 10 the in
gradients entering into its composition.
The defendant testified that the packages
were labeled Notwithstanding. which the
plaintiff would not deny. The defendants
produced evidence TO show that the beer
was Intoxicating, by analysis supported 10y
the opinion OF physicians, and further that
this beer had been repeatedly condemned
and forfeited by the Vermont authorities
This court is OF the opinion that the de
PENDANT had a right to rely upon the repre-
sensations Of the plaintiff and that no re-
coyery can be had because the goods did
not prove as represented