The Portland daily press., 1901-02-25
NOT AMALT LIQUOR.
, udse HnI's Ruiing ON Lithis Beer and
MS Reasons.

Saturday morning In the Municipal
court Judge Hill announced his decision
In the cases involving the sale OF Lithia,
Portsmouth and Hop beers, so-ealled.
These cases were tried at some length the
first Of the week and the testimony OF
the expert chemists was somewhat con-
fiicting.
Professor Bartlett OF dartmouth col
lege, and Professor George IL. Blake OF
this city, testified that in their opinion
the beer was properly a malt liquor. On
the other hand Professor Carmichael OF
Boston, and Professor Robinson of Bow
doin college. testified that in their opin-
ion the beer Is not a malt liquor and Is
not Intoxicating.
Saturday morning Judge Hin dis
charged the respondents, finding that the
beer seized is not a malt liquor and not
intoxicating. The beer Will have to be
returned 10 the persons from whom 10
was seized, and in the future this kind OF
beer win be allowed TO be sold and drank
freely.
Messrs. Marshall and Comedian were
counsel for respondents.
The uno ard lithis beer cases decided
by Judge Hill yesterday, seems to have
attracted public attention more from the
standing of the expert witnesses than
rrom the merits OF the cases themselves.
Ii is understood that thsrs was no law
involve1 In the decision and that the
cases turned wholly on question OF
fact. Also that they cannot be oonsid-
cred test In ali particulars for future
guidance on account OF the decision be-
ing based on facts and not forced by
construction Of law.
Our statutes forbids the sale OF any In
toxlcating liquor of whatever crlgin and
specifically provides that wine, ale,
porter, strong beer, lager beer and all
other malt liquors as wsu as distilled
spirits, shall be declared Intoxicating.
1t was not coutended by the state that
any oil the liquors in question were In
reality intoxicating and no evidence
was introduced to that effect. The at
torney for the state stated that he was
willing to admit that shey were not In
toxicating in reality, Dut only by virtue
of the statute which declares q malt
liquor to be so.
The decision, therefore, turned on the
question OF whether these were malt
liquors, not whether they contained 2
ger cent or 8 plr cent of alcohol or
wouI1 make a person drunk.
The court in our state, In 81 Me. gag,
said: The term malt liquor is y general
term embracing several kinds OF liquor;
what liquors are embraced in it as
we'll as the mode of their manufacture
and the ingredients of which they are
composed OF, is question of fact for
the jury and not of law for the court"
The presiding Judge In that case re-
fused to define the term malt" or o
say to the jury that "the statute does
not mean every Kind OF liquor that has
the smallest appreoiabis amount Of NAL
in it." lie LETT the whole determination
otsthe jury and 1t was sustained by our
court Of last resort.
So in the recent cases 1t is under
evidence presented and not on any legal
of the statute, 1t Will be
that the evidence consisted
mainly of four experts and one of the
parties connected with the manufacture
of that beer. Two of the experts, Prof.
Carmichael, OF Boston. and Prof Rob-
inson of Bow 1oiu college, at present |
state liouor assayer, testified that they |
had analysed the liquors and the syrups
of which they are composed, and that |
they contained no malt, were not malt |
Iiqour, but simply an initiation. Mr.. |
Tabor connected with the manufacture,
also testified TO the same effect
Prof, Bartlett of Dartmouth college |
said that there was no universally accept |
ed definition OF malt liquor, but ac-
cording to his understanding these were
malt liquors He furthsr said: al do |
not know that there is malt in them as
ordinarily considered In liquors did |
not make any test for the history of the
liquors - lie based his opinion on cer-
tain oharao teristics,
MIR. George Ii. Blake of Portland be.
leiTed the liquors in question to be- malt, |