The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-09-26
LINES ARE DRAWN.
Mr.. Spencer Finds Out Where
He Stands.

Several things have been determined
in the district court during the last "A
hours. One is that now and then a
jointist can be convicted. Another is
that City Attorney Spencer has at last
found out just what will and will not
be admitted as evidence.
Judge Hazen, following the ruling OF
the supreme court, neld that Wnen
complaint was issued for a jointist tnat
no testimony of things subsequent 70
the issuance of the complaint, could De
admitted as evidence.
When the case of Will Curry, who
was arrested on view came up, the ques-
ton was raised as to the Legality OF
evidence as to events whlcn nappeneu
before the officers viewed the quit OF
the defendant.
son to testify to prior events but after
the testimony had been given ana tue
court had looked up the authorllles' lhe
testimony of Henderson was taken
from the jury and II was rulsu ',as 4s,e
only evidence of what happened at the
time the arrest was made on view
could be admitted.
THE ilrv in the district court brought
in a verdict Friday afternoon hnoing
tanning and keeping common nuls-
| ance. namely a joint, where fermentiouss
spirituouS. malt and fermented LIQUORS
were sold contrary to the pronlpllofy
law of Kansas. A4a
rr11;s was the first conviction City At
tornnv Spencer secured in ten cases.
This was the strongest case Inat lne
city had to present. klrscn was pdl
| tender at the National Joint Ine po,
| lice went after James SheaSley ana ndo
warrant for his arrest Sheasley was
not at the National. Kirsch was, anu
he was in the act of dispensing drlnks
to the thirsty patrons. the o1ncers
watched him at work tor soIne LINZ. - a
Cd and convicted IN
police court. He appealed the case 70
the district court Now he Will likely
appeal to the supreme court:
| The entire and undivided attentlon
of Judge HaZen, City Attorney Spencer,
Attorney Magaw, the jury of twelve
men. the court stenograDber. the balllfr
and the witnesses were given TINS
morning to the consideration or the Sc
rious charge placed against George
Klauer.
Klauer was charged with selling
LIQUOR contrary to the laws of Kansas
| and the ordinances of the city OF To-
peka. Klauer claimed that ne was
guiltless of such a heinous offense he
admitted that he was found by the
officers dispensing fluids from behind a
bar, but he contended that the Dulu
was "hop tea and that this ''h. t.
beverage is no more harmful to the
minds and systems of those who drink
it than red circus lemonade.
Two chemists, Prof. Lovewell and
Prof. Dains, of Washburn college, were
summoned to prove to the jury that
hop tea is not intoxicating and also to
prove that it is intoxicating. The de-
fense had Prof. Lovewel to testify that
hop tea cheers but does not 1nebriate,
and the prosecution had Prof. Dams
to testify that hop tea is a drink on
which the drinker can become hila-
r;O1S.
Prof. Dains testified that he had apalyz-
| ed p sample of the stuff taken when
| fnf1 "a CO n
tanned 0217 per cent of alcohol. He said
that beer contained from .0350 to .O420
per cent of alcohol. In his opinion the
hop tea was strong enough to produce
! intoxication.
Prof. Lovewell stated that he had
analysed many samples of Topeka serv-
! ed beer He said that the percentage Of
alcohol in the specimens he had examin-
| ed ranged from 4 to per cent. He
thought that anything containing .02l7
per cent of alcohol was just about on the
| line between that which would lntoxi-
cate and that which would not In his
! opinion he said person could not
drink enough hop tea to become intoxi-
Gated
Prof Dains thought that there was
about as much alcohol in one drink of
beer as there is in one usual, small sized,
not too greedy drink of whisky.
| Prof. Lovewell stated that a drink of
whisky, which would be the alcohol in
a concentrated form. would produce in
toxication much quicker than the same
amount of alcohol in a glass of beer.
| When the case went to the jury it
/ hinged entirely upon the hop tea pro-
position as to whether such drink
with .O217 per cent alcohol would pro-
duce intoxicatson If used as beverage.
The jury, however, was not given a
chance to test the working ability of the
stuff.