Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1917-08-30
LIQUOR CASES TO Be
ARGUED At STAUNTON
Great Interest Shown in Final Dis
position Of Test Cases
Now on Appeal.
CLAUSES TO BE CONSTRUED
Quart-a-Month Section Attacked.
Farmer Claims Right to Give Away,
Cidar Made on his Own Place
From Fruit Grown by Him.

T I've Oh the SIX commonwealth cases
that will be argued in the Virginia
Supreme Court of Appeals at the Staun-
ton term, which begins Tuesday. in
rolve construction of various pro-
visions Of the State prohibition law,
and are the first to come before the
appellate court for consideration. Wide
interest in the cases have been shown
by attorneys in all sections Of the
State. because Of the effect the opinions.
when rendered, will have in the future
enforcement of the statute.
One of the most interesting questions
that has arisen since the prohibition
law became effective last November Is
that raised by the petitioners in the
cases of Henry Blair and james Ken
nan against the Commonwealth. In the
former case the indictment charged
Blair with having In his possession In
Clarke County at the same time two
quarts Of whisky. against the peace
and dignity OF the Commonwealth"
KEENAN, Is charged in the indictment
with unlawfully giving away ardent
spirits.
II Is the contention OF counsel for
both men that the indictments were de-
fective, In that they failed to note the
various exceptions that are found in
the prohibition law, which. In one in
stance. permits the possession OF ardent
spirits in ones home. or permits drug
other persons to have liquor in their
possession.
CASE INVOLVES GIVING AWAY
OF CIDER MADE; AT HOME
In the KEENAN, case 1t is the conten-
ton o. counsel that because one is
permitted by section G1 Of the prohibit
ton law to give away ardent spirits
In his home that the Indictment is de-
fective, because It fails to allege that
10 y, Iii,
given in place other than his home.
The record in the case shows that the
whisky Was given away in black
smith shop in Berryville. but this fact
was not set forth in the Indictment.
Another interesting noint to be de-
cidcd by the court is that raised in
the case of Calvin Bare from the Cir
cult Court Of Rockingham County. in
which must be decided the question
whether person can give away in an
clubhouse on his farm cider manufac-
tured by him out Of fruit grown by
him. The trial court instructed the
jury that IL the cider was Of greater
strength than per cen, the man could
not give II away except in his personal
dwelling-house.
Counsel for Bare excepted to this
ruling, and now contend before the Su-
preme Court Of Appeals that the word
home" as used in section 81 of the
meaning all buildings within the yard
attached TO mans personal dwelling.
Tho indictment charged that Bare did
manufac surc and unlawfully dispense
and give away intoxicating cider con-
tanning more than per cent OF alcohol,
by volume. In violation OF the prohibi-
tfon act Of Virginia" but did not state
specifically at what place the cider was
DISPENSED. He was fined $50 and SEN
fenced to thirty days in Jail by the
jury.
COCHRAN CASE AS TO
QUART-A-MONTH SECTION
In the cases Of Charles Cochran and
r. l.. Stultz. appealed from the Circuit
Court OF Rockingham County IL is the
contention OF the two men that under
the prohibition law one may receive
quart OF liquor once month, regard
less of the interval between the re-
ceipt of the same. The Commonwealth.
however. contends that under the law a
quart OF whisky can be received only
once every thirty days. In both cases
tho petitioners have assailcd the con-
stitutionality of the law on the ground
that the title fails to mention the ac-
ceptance or receipt OF ardent spirits,
and that, therefore. the act Is broader
than its title. and to that extent is
unconstitutional.
The record in the Cochran case shows
thdl HS IeCeiNeu d quart OF liquor NO.
vember %. 1916. and another December
%. 1916. signing at both times the
prescribed oath. He was convicted re-
ceiyed the minimum punishment o thirty
day In Jail and finde of $50. The brief
prepared by the Commonwealth says
that while section 40. under which the
indictment was had. provides that the
consignee may receive one quart of
distilled liquor not oftener than once
each month. yet this section requires
that the consignee Shall make an af-
fidavit that he has not received any
distilled liquor. wine or beer from any
person or from any place in excess OF
the quantity allowed by this act. within
thirty days preceding the date of his
affidavit"
These sections read together, we
think. clearly show that 1t was the
intent of the Legislature that not more
than one quart OF distilled liquor
should be received by any person with
in the period of thirty days, and that
the term not oftener than once a
month contained in section 40, must
be construed to be synonymous with
the term within a period Of thirty
days. which occurs twice in section
SO and once in section 40"