Rogue River courier. (Grants Pass, Or.) 1886-1927, 1912-03-01

plant and the warrant based tnere-
upon and for grounds alleges;
l. That search and seizure warrant
was wrongfully and unlawfully issued
and served for the reason, 1t appears;
that the justice OF the peace, before
Issuing said warrant, failed to ex-
anime on oath the complainant and
witnesses produced and to then and
there take their depositions in writ
ing and cause them to be subscribed
by the parties making them.
2. That said defendant has not
been furnished with certified list
OF the goods, wares and merchandise
seized and now being held under said
warrant and that no receipt was left
by the officer who seized the goods
at the time of the seizure as required
by statute. v4-
Demurrer
/. That said complaint does not
state facts sufficient to constitute a
crime.
2. The plaintiff has attempted to
show that the defendant resorted to
local device and devices, but said
complaint herein filed fails to describe
the place where the devices are kept
Or suspected of being kept. That
said allegation should appear in the
complaint which is fully and COM
pletely provided for in the local op-
tion liquor law, and the plaintiff has
proceeded and caused to be issued out
of the above entitled court in the
above entitled action a search war;
rant based upon an affidavit
8. That it does not appear upon
the records and files that the said
warrant was issued after the justice
of the peace had examined under
oath the complainant and his wit
nesses, or taken their depositions in
writing and caused them to be sub
scribed by the parties making them.
That pursuant to said warrant of
search and seizure issued of the JUS
tice court by said James Holman the
said constable and deputies there
under appointed, wrongfully and
without cause, unreasonably search
ed and seized a stock of goods, wares
and merchandise that had been stored
, by the defendant upon the premises
known as the Grants Pass Brewery
under the pretense and assumption
that the said plaintiff was keeping
the said liquors for the purpose of
selling the same in violation of the
local option liquor law. That the
said plaintiff has no knowledge nor
sufficient information as to what
quantity Of goods were taken by said
constable and his deputies for the
reason they failed to leave any re-
ceipt where the goods were taken
from or with the person in charge
Of the premises at the time they were
taken and seized, but plaintiff alleges
that there were stored goods, wares
and merchandise in the value of about
one thousand dollars, wholesale.
That the sale and use of intoxicat-
ing liquors are not prohibited in the
State of Oregon, but regulated by
local option liquor law, which has
provided that search and seizure may
be made upon the proper allegations
duly verified in the complaint describ-
ing the person, the place and the de,
vices for the better purpose of secur-
ing evidence to assist in aid of prose
cution of yiolators of the local op-
tion liquor law; but said law does
not provide for the confscation and
destruction Of property seized. The
said local option liquor law is COM
plete in itself and in recognition of
the use and sale of intoxicating liu-
uors the legislature has provided
methods and means of securing evil
dence for conviction; and also recog-
nized that any defendant convicted
under said local option liquor law
should not suffer his property after
answering purpose of evidence against
him to be subject TO coufscation. for
teiture and destruction, thereby i'm
posing upon amy convicted defendant
La dosble and unreasonable imposi.
ton in the way Of fines, forieitures
and penalties. That II the said de-
PENDANTS are not restrained they will
carry out threats 70 destroy plain.
tins soods, wares and merchandise
to the plaintiffs irreparable loss and
D u r..n....