The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-02-07
SELMA MEN
 ARE FINED Near Beer Dealers on
 Trial. JUDGE MABRYs DECISION Sale of Near Beer Violates State Prohibition Laws. Decision ef Judse sfsbry is of stats- wide IHsottaacs as Similar
 ones are Pending ia
 other- Courts.

beverage ConstltuteH n teiUuys WHb tho decision rendered by Judge !. w. Ma bry of the City Court of Selma. in the 'naar beer" cases which were tried in this court today.
 This decision by Judge Mabry was rendered shortly before $ o'clock and just after the counsel for the defense had concluded his argument. ane Of $50 was assessed against each of the Anear beer" dealers of the city who had been indicted by the grand
 The decision rendered by Judge Ma-. bry this afternoon In the "near beer
 cases is Of Statewide importance as similar cases are now pending Tn oth- CT courts all over the State. It Is un- derstood that tacit agreement has been arrived at whereby similar ver- dict of guilty will stand In the cases of the State pending an appeal and a- decision in the Selma cases from the Supreme Cout of che State ., At s:so o'clock this afternoon the arr guments in the cases were began be- fore Judge Mabry. Assistant Solicitor Mangurn did not argue upon the mer- it's of the States case and ieft all or the summing up to Hon. L. D. Jen- ries who represented the defense. Mr. yefYries based his argument upon the testimony which had been introduced during the morning session or the
  the blanket clause of the State proni- bition laws. Under the latter, he con- tended that the defendants had yto- lated no clause in the State prohibition
 statute by selling "near beer" ana
 that all druggists were just as.iiapie
 to the law and to have indictments
 returned against them as were the E.nsar beers dealers. That lemon ex- tracts and 1000 other articles which are sold in drug stores contained more | alcohol than did "near berr." as had been shown by the testimony of pr Ross, or as shown by the United states diapenNatton list. that nearly every cooking essence also contained the
 ssms snbstance in greater quantities.
 At some length Mfr. Jenries dwet unon these subjects and then cited ssvarai onlnions which had been rend- area at different times in other cases MT. Jefgries then offered several ae. murrers, all of which were overruieo by Judge Mabry. ~ Y,,A.a wahrv had rendered his decision. thirty snscisi charKes for Judge Mabry to de- iivnr to inc jury. To these special | charxen Judge Mabry objected, saying 1 that to deliver them hlmseh might m | fiuence him to change ms decision, | which he had already rendered. Y | seemed that both the state ana the ee- I l ~hioh would be rendered by Judge rrahrv would be technically the same 1 lf rarldered by Q jury or otherwise 1T | ro,,ld not be appealed to the Supreme I co,irt. Judge Mabry finally agreed to 1 consider the thirty special charges ana l strike out what he pleased ana at the | lime he intimated that he would not
 change his verdict
 The court then adjourned.
 | WRW. Hoes 0m Stand.
 For more than two hours pr. B, P. 1 Rosa professor in chemistry at the | AiaAanaa Poiytechnic School at Au- l hnrn was kept on the witness stand this morning. testifying as to tne anaiysis of the samples of near peer | which had been sent to him for analy- l sia last month by a committee Of the I,atiaa County Temperance Society and upon which analysis the grand jury oi tfe City Court of selma had returned I indictments sa6&inHt the seven neal
 heer'' dealers of the city and which caeen were called thls morning.
 The examination which pr. Ross wal
 submitted to. was tedious one and | durinR the time that he was on the stand. he again went over very part ol 4he analysis which he had previously made and explained the different prop cities which he had examined for anc had found in the bottles of near peer
 which had been sent to him for andy ais. He was questioned as to the va ried properties and substances which composed the beverage by Asslstani
 Solicitor R. H. Mangum TOT the ,stste 1 ana Hon. l.. E. JetfrieS for the de-
 fense. l Dallas County Temperance Society had
 sent to pr. Ross for analysis and upon which analysis the indictments had
 been returned by the grand jury of the City Court of Selma. were of three va
 rietlss. They were White Top. In all three of the samples, Dr. Ross II teatifed that he hadfoun a per cent age of albunoid and maltese and that
 about s per cent of the beverage was | conposed of solid substance and that I there was slightly. over 1 per cent ai- cohol in the near beer" which he had
 examined.
 Dr Ross was questioned time and again as to the different effect or as lto what would be the taste of the beverage if any one of the ingredients had been left out and he was also close lly questioned as to the properties or maltese which seems. to have. been one Iof she principle ingredients that made tup the drink
 During this questioning. pr. Ross ON@ Linear beer'' a malt beverage. but that he did not consider it a malt liquor under the accepted definition of that term. He further stated that the beverage was not product of maltese, tbut that the alcohol in the beverage lwas q product of the maltese.
 During the cross examination of pr.
 Ross by Mfr. Jeffries and when the for Inner was closely questioned as to the ingredients which composed near
 beer" 1t was thought by several of
 those who heard the evidence. that MT. upon the validity of parts of the state
 when Mir. Jeffrtes was questioning pr. Ross upon ''maltose."
 Referred to Code.
 Tn asking different questions of Dr. Ross, AGr Jeffries often referred to the code in which there are two mis- spelled words and which are 'maitace' and "genease." Tn the original act these words are spelled correctly and are ''maltose" and "geneose." and which Ingredients In beer. There was no such
 fluid or substance known in chemistry as "maitase" and 'fgenease" stated pr Ross So the court more than one tims To practically every question which Assistant Solicitor Mangum asked pr.
 Ross during his direct examination. Mr
 Jeffries for the defense interposed ob-
 ject!ons and made exceptions. The
 court ovefruled all of the objections
 and allowed the questions to be
 answered.
 The session of the City Court of Bel.
 ma to hear the near beer'' case thi,