The Semi-weekly leader. (Brookhaven, Miss.) 1905-1941, 1910-07-02
THE LAST NEAR BEER DECISION.
Some Views on the Scope Of Gle Opinion
Only Drinks With Very Low Per
Cent Of Alcohol Can De Sold
legally.


jackson, Miss. June ri. The
rulings az the supreme Court on.
the suggestions Of error 4n the Ful-
Ter cases are complete knockout
for near beer dealers, and the ven
dors Of all beverages Of that char
acter are liable to prosecution
under the statutory prohibition
law If they continue the traffic.
Summing up the legal situation
briefly, it seems that the near-beer
dealers took advantage Of a techni-
cality in the former ruling of the
Supreme Court, or misinterpreted
its true import. believing that it
gave them legal sanction to sell any
sort Of a beverage containing from
one to three per cent of alcohol.
That the Supreme Court did not
mean to give that Interpretation of
| the law was clearly indicated in
the decisions on the suggestions Of
error filed by Assistant Attorney
General Med and which we're
passed upon by the court yester-
day.
The court affirms the position of
the Assistant Attorney General that
a beverage containing 2.12 per
cent of alcohol. which was proven
in one of the Fuller cases. will, if
drunk to excess. produce intoxica-
tion. Supporting this decision,
Chief Justice Mayes cited a recent
ruling by the Federal court that
a malt beverage containing only
two per cent of alcohol will pro-
duce intoxication.
In the second Fuller case it was
shown that a beverage called
Brewette. contained only one
thirteenth of one per cent of aIco-
hol. and. in the former decision by
Justice Anderson it was held that
beverage Of this character could
not produce intoxication.
However. in overruling the sug-
gestion Of error in which Assistant
Attorney General Mcdowell attack
ed the soundness of this decision,
Chief Justice Mayes ruled that the
evidence in this branch of the Full
Ter litigation did not show that
"Brewette" was malt beverage,
and he intimated very plainly that
if any evidence had been adduced
showing 'Brewette'' to be a malt
beverage. its sale would be- con-
strued as violatiye Of the statutory
prohibition law.
Thus 1t is apparent that the Su-
preme Court is gradually working
its way back to the ruling made
more than a year ago in the cele-
Ebrated Edwards case, which was to-
the effect that it was not necessary
to prove that any beverage, if
drunk to excess, would produce in
toxication; that it was only neces-
sary to show that it was either a
alcoholic. malt. vinous or spirit
Gus liquor, = and its sale could be
prohibited by law.
| ''The rulings Of the court on
yesterday unquestionably mean
that the near-beer dealers must
quit business. and the sooner they
do it the better. : said Assistant
Attorney General Mcdowell. In
the future it will not even be neces-
sary to prove that brand of near
beer contains alcohol. It will only
be necessary to show that it con-
tains malt, and when evidence is
presented showing that any drink
lis malt beverage. ! am confident
that the Supreme Court will hold
that its sale is vlolatiye OF our
prohibition statutes.
Attorney General Hudson agrees
! with his assistant in this interpre-
tation Of the decision. and already
many Of the near-beer places in
jackson are closing up shop and
shipping their stocks back to the
breWcries.
Members of the Supreme Court
decline to comment on the rulings
made yesterday. saying that the
opinions speak for themselves.
Immediately after the decisions
were handed down several attorneys
applied to the Supreme Court clerk
for copies. desiring to carefully
anaIyze the ruling before advising
their clients on the question Of
whether to remain in business.
BY relieving the prosecuting
officers Of the duty of proving that
a near beer or any beverage Of that
character. contains certain per-
centage Of aclohol. and permitting
conviction no evidence showing only
that ii is malt beverage, the
knockout for the dealers is even
more decisive than the prohihi-
ltionists had hoped for. and it will
lrender convictions very easy in
future prosecutions.