Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1905-12-13

that it may be drank by an ordinary
person as a beverage and in such
quantities as to produce ,intoxication
| is intoxicating liquor. If its compo-
sition is such that it is practicable tc
commonly and ordinarily drink it as
a beverage and to drink it in such
quantities as to produce intoxication
then it is intoxicating liquor"
Under this definition which is entirely
accurate, and the evidence in this case
we hardly see how any question can
be raised as to the Intoxicating quality
of the malt extract for which the
plaintiff seeks to recover The ,eyi-
dence indisputably shows that it could
be drank in any quantity up to two or
three bottles and by everybody who
wanted to drink it and that it produced
intoXicatiOn. 1t seems to us very clear
that the plaintiffs must when they sold
these large invoices of goods have UNI
derstood the purpose for which they
We're bought
1t is, however, immaterial whether
the plaintiffs had any knowledge for
what purpose these extracts were
purchased if they We're in fact intoxi-
eating liquors and intended by the
purchasers for illegal sale in this
State. KnOwlton, in review versus
DOherity. 81 Me-, SIS.
Motion sustained.
Verdict set aside.
New trial granted.
The following are the new entries
for Hancock county: Mears versus
Jones; Pines, appellant from decree
of judge of probate, versus Rodick.
The following are the continued
cases from Hancock county: Ash ct
ais versus Mcclellan; Burrill National
Bank versus Gerry; Martin versus
Pettee; State versus Herlihy, appel
liant; State versus Kane, appellant;
State versus Williams.
The only new entry from Franklin
county is that of COburn versus Ber-
lin Mills Company.
The following are the continued
cases from Franklin county: Ameri-
can Enamel Company versus the Jay
Wood Turning Company; Greene YER
sus Martin; Higgins versus Franklin
County Agricultural Society; Neddan
versus Stratton Manufacturing Com
pany; Stubs versus Franklin & Me-
gantic Railway Company; Thompson
versus French.
The following are the new entries
from Kennebec county: City of Au-
gusta versus the Augusta Water Dis
trict; Deering. in equity, versus Per-
~, ct ais; Hayes, administrator versus
Rich; Johnston Company versus Gold
berg and Trustee; Parsons versus
Notnrvi1l0 e. OAKLAND ailWa
Company; Hayes, administrator YER
sus Rich; Mayo versus Richardson;
Poulin versus Blaisdell; Prescott YER
sus the inhabitants of Winthrop;
Purinton, libellant. versus Purinton;
Rich versus Hayes, administrator, de
bonis non; Stuart, petitioner, for ha-
beaS corpus versus Smith, sheriff; Ia
Der ct ais versus Douglass ct ais;
State versus Balduc; State versus
Granger; State versus Bowman; State
versus Langlois; State versus Peter
son and Libby; State versus Balduc;
State versus Libby, appellant; State
versus Langlois: State versus Peter
son and Libby; State versus Libby ap-
pellant.
The following are the continued
cases from kennebec county: Beedy
versus the Maine Central Railroad
Company; Bradbury. appellant, from
decree of judge of rebate; Beldy YER
sus the Maine Central Railroad Com
any; Cosgrove versus the Kennebec
Light & Heat Company; Church YER
sus Knowles; Finn versus the New
England Telephone and Telegraph
Company; Haynes pro ami versus
~
Railway Company; F'innemore versus
Abbott; Herbert versus ProulX and
trustee; A. o. Lombard versus A. S.
Burke; Mclaughlin. complainant
versus JOY; Oakland Wooden Com
pany in equity versus the Union Gas
& Electric Company; Parrot Company
versus Davis and trustee; State ver-
sus Cole; Thompson. de bonis non.
versus the Augusta, Winthrop and
Gardiner Railway Company; White
house versus Norcross; Wood versus
Maine Central Railroad Company.
The following members of the bar
were in attendance: Joseph w. Sy-
mOnds, David N. Snow, Gen. Charles
+. MattOcks, Enoch Foster, Scott Will
son, y. f. Neal, Portland; George G.
Wing. Auburn; Seth NJ. Carter, Wal
lace H. White, Frank A. Morey, Ralph
w. Crockett, George S. McCarty. Lew
iston; Orville d. Baker, Leslie &. Cor
lish. Thomas Leigh, Benedict F.
Maher. Norman l.. Bassett, +. NJ.
Thompson, Charles l.. Andrews, w. H.
Fisher. Arson NJ. Goddard, Augusta;
a. A. Matthew, Waterville; George W.
Field, Oakland.
The first case argued was that of
State VS.. George Barlebais, an appeal
Il 49,