The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1910-08-05
C0URT DON'T LIKE
NEAR Beer"
mAuOp6 HIGHEST TRIBUNAL
PASSES UPON QUESTION
OF NABIPA CASE.
InteaG Of Legislature Considered
Proof Of Intoxicating Effects Not
Required Relative to Malt and
sUlrituOus Liquors Says Court.

NV q uGClSAOh "a SAS ONpAS SSN-S 1
rendered Wednesday In the habeas
corpus proceedings Of Jacob Lock-
man. the Nampa brewer, near beer"
ia held to be an intoxicating liquor,
and cannot be sold in a prohibition
district. The courts conclusions are
summarized in the following Ian
guage:
Section 81 Of the local option stat
ute (19O9 session laws, page 49,, de-
anes intoxicating liquor as including
.'spirituous, vinous, malt and fer
mented liquors, and all mixtures and
preparations thereof, including bit
ters and other drinks that may be
used as q beverage and produce in
toxication."
Under the definition given by the
legislature in section 81 of the local
option statute all spurious, vinous,
malt and fermOnted liquors" are de-
clared as a matter of law 10 be intox-
icatinR, and It is unnecessary for the
state to prove that any liquor or bev-
erage falling within the enumerated
class viii in fact produce intoxica-
ton,
Under the provision of the local
option statute, (section S1) 1t is nee
essary for the state to prove the in
roxicating quality of all mixtures and
preparations used or intended to be
used a. beverages which do not fall
within the enumerated class designat-
ed as "spirituous, vinous, malt and
fermented liquors"
The legislature in the enactment OF
the local option statute evidently had
in mind q twofold object, first, that
of dIscOuraging and as far as posi-
BILE preventing. intoxication, and in
temperance In the use of intoxicants;
and secondly, and equally important
that Of protecting the youth of the
state from acquiring the habit OF in
dulging In drinks and beverages that
contain the intoxicating element.
Lockman was arrested on June %
for violation of the local option law
and q preliminary hearing given IL
probate court at Caldwell, at which II
was proven that he had sold the pro-
duct known AZ NEAR beer" He wal
bound over to the district court in th'
sum Of $500, in default of which NJ
was remanded to the custody OF th'
sheriff Of Canyon county. Through
his attorneys. Hawley. Pickett 4
Hawley, application for q writ OF ha
beas corpus was made to the suprem
court ON the ground that he had no
violated the local option law, 1t beini
questionable whether or not "nea
beer vas an intoxicating liquor, an
whether he was. therefore, illegall
detained.
Under this option II is decided tina
the petitioner 10 properly held.
Inaerest OF the Legislature.
In its Interpretation the court o.
lieves that the legislature had
mind q two fold object In passing tn
local option law. first to discourae
and a. far a. possible prevent intox
cation. and, second. and of equal IN
portance, the protection of the you'
of the state from acquiring tas
for intoxlcAnts and the habit OF u
dulEinR in drinks that contain the i
tOxicating element.
In commenting upon the eVide'
intent Of the legislature In pSSs''
the local option law the court says:
''The legislature likewise rec"
nIINd the fact that VinOus, malt 81
ftrmented liquors all contain, to son
extent. tho element OF alcohol,
though u may not be 20 sHch degr
az TO produce intOxicatiOn. The
therefore, concluded when Writi
this statute defining the words
tOxicAttAR liquors. 20 declare As
matter Of law that all spurious, VI
Gus, malt and fermented liquors. o
intoxicating. irrespective Of
amount Of alcohol which they &
tain, and whether or not the PaFu'
lar kiAd OF drink win, in fact p
dUce intOxicatiOn. They must n
had IN mind the difficulty that wo'
arise IN the enforcement Of suci
law - they were enRcting II they
IL to be proven In every case OF
sale Of VinOus, malt or fermen