The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1917-02-27
|TAhHAUSER NOT MALT
| LIQUOR, SAYS JURY
terday Against w. c. Herbert. Who
Secured His Own Indictment
MANY EXPERT WITNESSES,
Experts Testify That Drink Which
Commissioner Declared Illegal Docs
Not Contain Malt-Case VIII BE
Appealed by Commonwealth.

A verdict OF not guilty was returned
| by Jury in the musings court yes
terday in the Tanhauser case. which
has been on trial there since Friday
morning. The case consumed all of
three days, and consisted chiefly OF
the expert testimony of chemists who
had analysed the soft drink "Tanhaus-
er' to determine whether or not ii
contained qualities that would place
1t without the law The defense was
represented by Harry NJ. Smith. Jr.. and
Murray M. Mcclure, while the law firm
of Buchanan and Scott assisted COM
monwealth's attorney with the prose-
cution
W. C. Herbert. local distributor for
Tanhauser. a soft drink which resem-
bles beer in many particulars. but is
said to be lacking in Conversation,
secured his own indictment for viola
tion of the prohibition law in order
to test the authority OF Prohibition
Commissioner Peters to declare the
drink In the class of malt liquors for
hidden by law. Through an analysis
made by DIR. Bradbury. chemist in the
state department OF agriculture. Tam
hauser was found to contain certain
properties that gave evidences -
malt" or '"malt process" and the com :
legal.
soft Drink widely sold.
The indictment of Herbert, at his own
request, excited much interest through-
out the state. since the distribution
of Tantauser had been very wide and
large quantity of it had been sold.
Or. Walter N. Cross, municipal chem
list OF Kansas City, Mo. and who also
had made several inspections OF the
Royal Brewing company's plant there.
where Tanhauser lis made. was one of
the principal witnesses for the defense.
He testified that all his tests and analy-
ses failed to find any trace Of malt or
the malt process
DR. Froehlins, DR. whitfield. city
chem st Dr. Otto Meyer, and others
besides br7 cross testified ti1at-titri-
tests showed no signs or any Illegal
quantities in the drink. and that the
small amount OF alcohol present was
insignificant. Or. BradhurN's test
showed considerably more alcohol thu n
any Of the others. and stated that since
barley sprouts ono of the ingredie n g
Of beer. also figured largely in the
manufacture OF Tsnhauser. he thought
II was malt drink.
Jury HopeIessiy Divided.
Late Saturday afternoon the testi-
mOON was c0fCiuueu, and the arg ufUeNI
OF Instructions begun. The argument
of the case was not begun until yes
terday morning, extending through the
DAY. The jury took the case about 4
O'Clock and in about a half hour re-
turned 10 say that they apparently
hopelessly divided. but that they might
be al BILE 70 agree il the Judge would
enlighten them on one or two points.
They were at variance. apparently. on
the relative beer" and malt quail
ties Of the barley sprouts and the bar
ls% seed. \ further set of instructions
were given them after an hours arSu-
ment, and they retired TO return in tif-
teen minutes with verdict OF not gull
tv.
No ppesl was noted at the conclusion
of the case but Judge Richardson
stated last night that attorneys for
the commonwealth had notified him
that an appeal would be taken to the
higher court In case verdict had
been rendered against Herbert. the
penalty Is not less than $50 fine and a
Jail sentence of not less than thirty
DAYS
In the event that the higher court
suxtaius the verdict of the hastings
court jury. it was stated by authority
last night. the sale of TanhauSer will
be legal within the Jurisdiction of the
local court. and consequently may he
carried on generally through the state