The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-12-30
POOLE BEER IS REAL THING Test is Made in Open
 Court. CASE $ BEING CONSIDERED
  Arguments Are Finished by Aitor- nsys Wednesday. ss~s Point. .f Law Ars Dl.ea-.ea sy Counsel for County and Defense. Judge Brown H.. Takea the Controversy un-
 der Advisement.
 

The prima facie evidence feature of the Weakley- Fuller law, the States sole mainstay In. the prosecution of AL derman William T. Toole for alleged violation of the prohibition laws. was attacked with vigorous argument and innumerable citations in the closing of the trial of the now celebrated case before Judge Brown in the City Court Wednesday morning.
 Judge Brown reserved his decision. He stated that 1t probably will be written and he expects to devote a week to the study of the numerous papers. and cited cases in connection with the trial of the Toole beer case i.
 Much of the argument offered by the defense Wednesday centered around the precise definitions of the words dwelling and "curtiiege" and more especially. around the true in- tent of the State Legislature in the passage of the Weai<ley- Fuller law. Solicitor P. H. Stern told Judge Brown that the vicious feature of the law. if such feature existed in the mind of the judge. could not be con- sidered. that the law was before him of the. seizure of IA casks of beer on the Toole premises at 14 Jefferson street invited the presumption that the law was being violated.
 Attorneys Leon Well and c. P. Mc- Intyre for the defense maintained that the mere physical evidence of the beer having been found on the Tooie premises was no proof that it was being sold. They argued that the beer could legally have been stored in the out-house where it was found, by virtue of the fact that the house was within the curtilege of the dwelling house and that no business was con ducted on the premises.
 The State has no case so far as the actual sale of the beer is concerned. Solicitor stern argued purely on the prima facie evidence of the quantity of beer being on the premises.
 CritseIses ConstahIes.
 Attorney We'll charged disobedience was made by Constables J. c. Jones and George Wilson, saying that the warrant issued by Judge Brown di- rooted a search of certain outhouse and a stable on the premises when those buildings were open" It was admitted by Constable Jones that the outhouse was locked when he and Constable Wilson. appeared to execute the warrant, and that 1t was opened by William ]. Tooie after threat of Constable Jones to bHeak down the door unless fl was unlocked and op- ened This action was termed coer- cion and was charged as illegal
 A comedy incident crept into the trial when seven bottles of the con- fiscated beer were produced In the court and tested The proceeding was purely formal as the fact that the large amount of fluid was beer was not contested by the defense. But Solicitor Stern wished to put his con science at ease and he examined Con- stable Jones in connection with the purity of the beer.
 The constable opened a bottle and was directed to taste it. He tilted the bottle high in the air and took good long drink.
 "Is it beer?" asked the solicitor.
 Then the constable put another big gulp out of it's misery and announced:
 That's beer"
 Others Make Test.
 The wounded bottle was placed on a window sill but it was doomed not to rest in peace, for there were sev- eral devotees in the court room who apparently preferred testing for them selves to taking the assurance of the witness. The remaining six bottles were spirited away and marked EEK hibit "A"
 What Judge Brown will decide in the case is impossible to forecast. Throughout the trial he made admis- sions to both sides and 1t was ob- vious during the latter part of the trial Wednesday that he was inclined to look with more favor upon the arr gument of the defense. The first tactics of the defense were over-ruled almost totally. especially the overtures to class the confiscated beer as an in- terstate shipment.
 An intimation of an appeal to the