The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1905-12-21
THE LAW COURT.
Rescript by Judge Spear Relating to Sale
of Malt Extract An Important Decision


\ decision. sweeping in its effect, was
handed down by the law court Dec. 18th
relating to the sale of malt extract in
this State, and makes another phase to
the mooted question Of the enforcement
of the prohibitory liquor law. The re-
script is in the Penobscot county case
of John c. IIeintZ and others versus
Francis LIE Page and others. The plain
tlffs sued to recover payment from the
defendants for quantity of malt ex-
tract and the jury returned verdict in
favor of the Plaintiffs. Counsel for the
defendants filed exceptions and carried
the case to the law court, raising the
Intoxicating liquor and intended for
unlawful sale in this State. That tribu-
nal took the same view as the counsel
for the defendant, has sustained the
motion, set aside the verdict and has
granted new trial. The rescript, drawn
by Justice Spear, is as follows:
This is an action of as sumpsit to re-
cover the sum of S770 on the following
account. 1908, October 2lst, to mdse.
500. Nov. ), to mdse. $420. Dec. 10,
to mdse S210, $40. The first charge in
this account was for 20 barrels, 200 doZ-
en-, Paragon Malt Extract. The second
was for 40 barrels, 100 dozen Paragon
Malt Extract. The third charge was
for 20 barrels, 200 dozen Paragon Malt
Extract. IN other words from the 2lSt
day of October 1908 to Dec 10Th, 1908, a
little less than two months, the plain
titfS in this ease sent to the defendants
at Millinocket, Maine, 90 barrels con
tanning 500 dozen, 5000 bottles of Malt
Extract and claim that 1t was sold and
delivered for medicinal use by the in
habitants of this village The defend
ants plead the general issue to the
plaintiffs declaration and for q brief
statement IN defence claimed "that the
goods they purchased were Intoxicating
liquors, sold out of this State with the
intention that they should be sold in
this State in violation of Chapter %, r.
s., Sec. GA.
The undisputed facts regardless of
the testimony of witnesses show con-
clusively that the plaintiffs knew that
these malt extracts were intoxicating.
We have no doubt that they were COM
pounded as a subterfuge to avoid the
effect of the prohibitory law of this
State. The claim that they intended
the sale of nine thousand SIX hundred
bottles of this extract for medicinal
use only i'll the village of Millinocket
and vicinity, is utterly absurd. The
quantity alone under the circumstances
is sufficient to convince us that these
extracts were intended to be sold as a
beverage and not as medicine. The
other evidence in the case, if any, was
needed thoroughly confirms this view.
This liquor was sold by the bottle
and glass and the testimony shows that
one person could drink two or three
bottles at a time. From the testimony
we should infer that it was drank prac-
tically the same as lager beer and ale.
Over three hundred bottles were sold
on one fourth of July.
The justice presiding charged the
jury as follows, with respect to what
constituted Intoxicating liquors: so
| repeat, any liquor containing alcohol,
which is based on other ingredients
that it may be drank by an ordinary
person as a beverage and in such
quantities rs to produce intoXication,
is Intoxicating liquor. If its compost
tion is such that It is practicable to
commonly and ordinarily drink it as a
beverage and to drink it in such guam
titles as to produce intoxication, then
it is intoxicating liquor
Under this definition, which is entire
ly 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 evil
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 un-
derstood the purpose for which they
were bought.
1t is, however, immaterial whether
the plaintiffs had any knowledge for
what purpose these extracts were pur-
chased, if they were in fact intoxicat-
ing liquors and intended by the pur-
chasers for illegal sale in this State.
Knowlton, in review versus Doherity.
81 Me, SIS.
Motion sustained. Verdict set aside.
New trial granted.