American Fork citizen. [volume] (American Fork, Utah) 1912-1979, 1914-07-25
Is Sour Fruit Juice
An lntOxiCa0t or Cider?
Important Question Raised in Recent
Liquor Case Is Appealed to District
Court.

Saturday, the two liquor cases OF
Lehi City vs.. George Beck and Lehl
City w. Frank Smith were tried be-
fore George Webb and Il verdict OF
guilty rendered In both instances
BECK was fined 1925 and Smith $3.50.
In the Beck case the defendant con
tended that he was In the vinegar
business and the stun that was bought
by Strictly, the detective, was nothing
more nor less than sour vinegar, even
II II did contain some alcohol. Mr..
Beck says that he has / 400 gallons
Ia his cellar Of various ages, from a
few days to several years. but that
none of II is fl to drink az beverage
any more than is Peruna or Lydia Il.
Pinkham's Compound. He says that
100 gallons that the officers have
locked up In the city Jail under the
search and seizure raid was made from
cherries mashed and boiled I'm water
with little sugar In to make the stuff
90 sour. but that II Is less than two
weeks old. and Is no more intoxicat-
Ing than sweetened water He main
tains that though the product pur-
chased by Strictly may have had some
alcohol In II, II was too sour TO be
used for any other purpose than for
vinegar. and that all fruit vinegar
has some alcohol In 1t before II finally
reaches the age suitable for use. The
city contends that the stun is being
sold for intoxicating purposes and has
been making boys drunk; that any
thing containing more than 2 per cent
alcohol is intoxicating liquor. The
bottle purchased by the detective was
analysed by the state chemist and
contained between and s per cent
alcohol. Mr. Beck points out that the
chemists analysis also shows that II
had turned sour. The question is
when is fruit Juice intoxicating liquor
and when is II vinegar? In one case
II may be sold without license for
making pickles; In the other the ven
dor Is liable to arrest for violating
the liquor law.
In Frank Smiths cases the testimony
showed that one c. F. Strictly was
employed by the city to catch Smith
that Strictly and the officers went to
Smiths place, and while the officers
stood on the street opposite Smiths
home, Strictly went in and purchased
and drank a bottle of beer. The off,
GERS corroborated Strieby's testi- |
mony to the extent OF looking through
the open door and seeing him drink |
the beer. They also smelled beer on
his breath when he came out. Mr..
Sxmith put In no defense at all, except
ing his plea Of not guilty. The justice
gave verdict Of guilty and affixed a
fine Of $3.50
There seems to have been an un-
at least on Smiths part,
that II the city would not push the
case against his wife, who is also
under arrest for similar offense,
that he would not appeal to the dis
trict court. but would pay his fine.
Mrs. Smith Is Ill. and Just prior to
her husbands trial the officers went
to her home and she entered plea
OF guilty"
After the trial the officers again
went to her home and agreed to fine
her $50 provided her husband would
pay $3.50. making 5000 In all. The
city says that Mrs. Smith. having
pleaded guilty. $50 is the least fine
that can be affixed In her case. Smith
says that by pushing her case the city
has broken tacit agreement. 30 he
has appealed the case and given bonds
and will try out the Issues In the dis
trict court
In the meantime Mrs. Smith re-
mains unsentenced. though having en-
tered-a plea OF guilty.