Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-08-11
important Decision OF
Supreme Court
IN Case Of Matt Beer Less
Than One Per Gent.
Legislative Authorities May Prohlb'
ItSale Of Specific Article.

|
Hicks holds that malt beer, although
il may contain less than one per cent.
of alcohol may, be seized in accord
ance with Chapter 90, Section 40 OF the
Revised Statutes and that 1t is WITHIN
the legislative authority in the eXer-
else of the police power to prohibit the
sale of a specific article. The rescrlpt
is as follows:
State VS.. Fred Thordike and H. Irv-
ing Hix. Rescript. (No opiniom.
Per Curtain. Upon warrant is
sued by the police court of the city of
Rockland, upon a complaint for search
and seizure. the officer returned the
seizure of 1.-The following described in
toxicating liquors. viz; zoos glass bot
ties, each bottle containing about one
pint of malt liquor. labeled Nu-Bru.'
Found guilty, the respondents appeal
ed and the case is now before us on
report on agreed statement of facts.
From the agreed statement it APP
pears that 1.-The only liquors seized
by the officers and returned on the
warrant were a compound known as
Nu-Bru. This is a beer into the COM
position of which malt enters, and
malt is used in brewing it. 1t contains
less than one-half of one per cent. Of
alcohol, one analysis by the State
Chemist showing less than one-fourth
of one per cent Copy of label on bot
tie and box is part of report
| Contains less than 1-2 of l per cent
Alcohol. Guaranteed under the pure
food and drugs act-June goth, 1906n-
Serial number 20965.
| Nu-Bru, Intoxicating. a refresh
ing beverage, hygienic and nutritious,
brewet> from choicest malt and hops,
thoroughly fermented and aged. In
dependent Brewing Company Of Pitts
burg, Pittsburg, Pa. Label design
registered. "Nu-Bru.''
| Notice: The contents of this pack
age "Nu-Bru'' when delivered at the
brewery of the undersigned was then
guaranteed under the Pure Food and
Drugs Act of June 50, 1906 as per
| guaranteed Serial No 20965 and when
then delivered contained less than one
half of one per cent. of alcohol by vol
ume, but that if this package be sub
ject to changes of temperature and its
| contents be not consumed in a short
time fermentation may set up and the
| alcoholic contents of the Nu-Bru con-
| tanned herein may be increased so as
| to be in excess of the amount stated
| above.
Independent Brewing Company of
Pittsburgh
| BY agreement of the parties, if the
sale of the liquor seized is contrary to
the statutes. judgment is to be for the
State. otherwise the complaint is to be
dismissed. The question presented for
decision is not whether the liquor
seized is in fact Intoxicating but
whether it is one of the liquors which
the statute Or. S. C. 90, s. 400 declares
to be Intoxicating. The answer de-
ponds ons the construction to be given
the words land all other malt liquors
found in the expression, "wine, ale.
porter strong beer, lager beer and all
other malt liquors" used in that sec
ton. Counsel for defendant urges that
the words strong and Eager may
be rejected and that the words "other
malt, liquors. must be held not to in
clude beer. We cannot assent. The
words strong" and "lager'' are de-
| scriptive of the malt liquors specific
ally declared Intoxicating and the
words "all other malt liquors" are eX-
elusive only of ale porter, strong beer
1 and lager beer'-not of all beer.
1 Confessedly the liquor is brewed
from malt and the fact that, either
from the small quantity Of malt used
or other causes, it contains but an in
tsignifcant quantity of alcohol. makes
| it none the less a malt liquor.
The tendency of such a malt liquor
| narfa in
amount of alcohol greater than that
present when the liquor is brewed may
be the reason. for the legislative de-
termination that "all other malt Id
uors" are Intoxicating. Whatever its
reason, it is within the legislative au-
| thority in the exercise of the police
power to prohibit the sale of specific
article: State VS.. O'Connell, SO No. 81.
81
The rulings Of the head of bureau
lof the L. s. Treasury Department I'M
der revenue act cannot be control
ling, even if they We're applicable and
persuasive. According to the agree
ment of the parties, there must be
| Judgment for the State
/ The supreme court has also handed
down decision in a Hancock county
case involving the question of the OBJ
structionI of a way. The rescript, which
was drawn by Judge Cornish is as fol-
lows:
Harriette w. Young VS.. Dwight Bra
man. Same vs. Same.
Rescript, Cornish. j.
Two actions on the case for OBJ
struction of way, are before the law
court on report. Plaintiff purchased
from the defendant on March %, 1904,
L certain lot of land in Sullivan with
la dwelling house thereon described in
the deed as follows:
"All that lot of land at Sullivan Har-
Thor bounded southerly ir front by
| Waukeag avenue. on the East by land
now or late of White 1874 feet, on the
north by land now or late of White
| and land now or late of Tredick. 90 feet
: inches, and on the West by the drive
way No the Manor Inn, containing
10000 square feet be the same more OF
less. said premises being shown on the
diagram below
l hn 10 CHI lok sv,