The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-07-12
DECISION WILL Be
ANNOUNCED LATER
lest Case on Sale of Beer ir
No-License Ter
ritory.
IspcciaI to The Timcs-Dis,atch

t'HSNlf' 10 ne JlDcS-DisDatch
alexandria. Va, July 1.-THE right
OF a brewery manufacturing Its pro-
ducts In a no-liccnse territory to de.
liver same in a licensed territory by
other than a common carrier was Tho
subject of case which was brought,
before Justice Cation. of the Police
Court. this morning. in which tie
Arlington Brewing Company, a corpo.
ration. whose plant is located at Ross.
Ign. Alexandria county. was made tho
defendant.
Justice Cation. after hearing brief
arguments on both sides. announced
that In the near future he would an
nounce his decision in the case. II
is generally believed that the case
presented this morning is in the nature
of a test case and that the matter
VIII finally find its way 70 the state
Court OF Appeals Tor adjudication.
The case came up on a warrant
sworn out at the instance of Com
monwealth's Attorney Samuel c. Brent.
ana charged that an agent of the com
pany did "on or about the Sth day Of
July deliver quarter of kee Of
beer in this city" by other than a com
mon carrier
1t was commended by Mr. Brent that
the brewery had no right to deliver
beer in this city unless by a common
carrier such as railroads and steam
boats. and the company has been do
livering its products here by its own
wagons. which he declared to be con.
trary to the State law on the subject
The brewing company was repre-
sented by Judge j. *. Nj Norton and
Attorney l.. y. Bailey the latter OF
Washington.
When the case was opened Judge
Norton asked that the warrant be
made against the Arlington Brewing
Company, corporation. so as to mako
the corporation the defendant, and this
was done. the name of the agent heinz
stricken from the warrant He con-
tended that the defendant corporation
mad paid the required license, $3.50, a
year. and did deliver by other than a
common carrier, from its wagons, the
quantity of beer to a saloon keeper
mentioned in the warrant He. how
ever, contended that the concern mad
the right to do so under the statute
of the state. This was opposed bv
Mr. Brent for the Commonwealth.
'Houlu tne case be decided against
the brewing company by all of tho
courts it would mean that hereafter
in order to sell their product In this
city II would be necessary for them to
send 1t by common carriers, such as
railroads or steamboats,, which would
of course. work great hardship on
them. At the present time their
wagons make daily trips to this city
and deliver beer as is done by the
home company.
If resolution passed by the Cham
Der of Commerce is carried out tho
police of this city will enforce tho
vagrant law This body has taken
these steps owing to the fact that at
times 1t is almost Impossible to secure
labor, especially in the summer months
1t is also contended that the negroes
and certain whites without visible
means OF support hang around saloons
and Will not work when work Is Of
fered them. They will hereafter. II
this is carried out. either have to work
or so to jail unless they prove to the
satisfaction OF the court that thew
have visible means of support