Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1916-02-08
Supreme Court Does Not Say If It Is Illegal to
 Keep It in Stock.
PINE BLUFF HOTEL h
 CASE IS REVERSED.
Court Holds That Company Has Grounds on Which to Collect Penalty of $1OO Per Day
 from Contractors.


 statewide prohibition law prohibits the sale of raw alcohol when sold to be used in the manufacture of medi- cines, tinctures, or varaishes the supreme court ruled t1day. The court did not pass on the subject oi ! whether it was legal for a concern to keep raw alcohol ir stock.
 Hotel Company May Collect Penalties. The Pine Bluff Hotel company has grounds on which to collect penalties of S10O day for period extending over nearly year, from Monk < Ritchie. contractors, v'ho erected the Hotel Pines, in Pine Bluff, according to a decision handed down reversing the lower courts action because of an error in instructing the jury and re- manding the case for ] new trial. The firm was given verdict If sl2,- 94327 still due on the building. and $3,500 for reconstructing retaining wall, by the lower court, winch. il. turn, gave the hotel company el6.- 027.2O verdict for loss sustained be- cause the contractors did not com. plete the building within the speci- fled time. The lower court erred ir instruct ing the jury that the stipulation in the contract relative to a $100 da;iy pen- atty for failure to complete the build- ing on a given date, meant that the hotel company should only recover actual damages sustained. The con- tract is enforceable as valid contract for liquidated damages, the court held. Rebube for Attorney. The supreme court administered a stinging rebuke to R. G. Davies, Hot Springs attorney, for his abuse il. q brief of an attorney in the suit of W. H. Hall against c. Floyd Huff, a litigation over Hot Springs real es- tate. The court ordered Davies brief stricken from the files "for relsnn I that it constitutes a scurrilous and unwarranted attack on counsel for the appellee" the court said. ! The suit in question was before the court on petition for. rehearing Decisions and Orders Made.
 The following opinions were rem dered and orders made in the supreme court Monday: Fly Chief Justice McCulloch:
 Pine Bluff Hotel Building vs. Monk X Ritchie, from Jefferson circuit court; reversed; and remanded. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & South ern Railway company ys. Home Oil & Manufacturing company, from Wood ruff circuit court; affirmed. Commercial Bank of Alma vs. Toes from Crawford circuit court; revers- 1 ed and remanded. y c. J. Lincoln company vs. State ex rel. appeal from Pulaski chancery court; affirmed; Justice Hart concurs By Justice Wood:
 o. D. Longstreth vs. Amos Halter from Conway chancery court; re- 1 versed and remanded.
 American National Insurance com pany vs. Mary Otis, from Phillips cir cult court: reversed and dismissed. 1 Shawmut Lumber company vs. w F. Waites, from Pike circuit court: l affirmed.
 By Justice Hart:
 Henry Waldstein vs. Nathalia w Brooks, from Jefferson chancery court; affirmed. F. B. Bumgardner and M. c. Price vs. D. B. Morris, from Sebastian cir cult court; reversed and dismissed. Kansas City Southern Railway com pany vs. William A. Burton, from Miller circuit court; affirmed. By Justice Kirby:
 Marvin P. Watkins vs. Special School District of Lepanto, from Poinsett circuit court: reversed and remanded; Chief Justice McCulloch and Justice Hart dissent.
 Birdie Moseley vs. Mohawk Lumber company, from Columbia circuit court; reversed and remanded.
 John Olson vs. Swift & company from Pulaski circuit court: affirmed. Deming Investment company vs. & P. Echols ct al., from Crawford chan cery court: affirmed.
 By Justice Smith:
 1 Nevada County Bank vs. J. A. Sul-
 livan. from Nevada chancery court; reversed and remanded.
 | R. c. Bridger vs. State, from Ar kansas circuit court: affirmed.
 Simon Cooper vs. J. w. Dembv, from Garland circuit court; reversed and remanded.
 Orders Per Curiam. St. l.. Cooperage company vs. Wiley
 Jackson, from Monroe circuit court;
 judgment modified 90 as to remand