The Churchill county standard. (Fallon, Nev.) 1908-1920, 1919-03-12
NEAR BEER UNDER BAN
SAYS SUPREME COURT
Can Neither BE Manufactured Nor
Sold Under the Provisions of
the Initiative Law

Friday the Supreme Court of this
State decided that 1t was unlawful
to sell, manufacture or give away any
malt brewed liquors. The result of
this decision is that the manufactur-
ing and sale or giving aawy of near
beer Is unlawful, and means that
this industry in the State of Nevada
and the sale of the malt beverage is
under ban.
The suit that brought this court
determination was instituted in the
case of the State of Nevada ex rel
George Thatcher as Attorney Gener-
al of the State of Nevada, respond
ent, VS.. the Reno Brewing Company
of Reno, Nevada. appellant.
The original proceeding was the
rounding up of the Reno Brewing
Company TO test the law. The com
pany upon being cited for trial asked
for an injunction pending the suit
which was granted, an order holding
up the decree of the lower court was
issued pending the outcome of the
appeal to the Supreme Court
The case was then heard before
the court. where 1t was the conten-
tion of the attorneys for the brew
ing company that the beverage being
non-alcoholic did not come under
the provisions of the prohibition act
and law.
The court reviews the case first.
then cites Section one of the law, in
which all alcoholic malt and other
beverages are specifically named as
coming within the act. The court
upholds this section OF the law and
In relation TO this particular section
says:
what set of words could be more
designed to illuminate the language
all malt or brewed drinks whether
intoxicating or not shall be deemed
malt liquors within the meaning of
this act.
ut performs the function of clas-
styling and doubtful construction of
the preceding language in the stat
utes There is no conflict
as between per eentum of alcohol
This plain inclusion of
non-alcoholic malt liquors is not in
consistent with any part of this act.
"A consideration of this entire act
and its scope of purposes convinees
us that the term, intoxicating liq
uors, is used in Sec. Ia, is TO be TAX
en- as used interchangeably with the
word liquor, in Section one. and that
the district court had jurisdiction to
grant the injunction.
THE order of the district court
modifying the injunction is vacated
and set aside. and the injunction as
originally granted is continued in
full force and effect.
The opinion is by Ducker, j., con-
Cured in by Chief Justice Coleman
and Sander. j.
1t is presumed that a petition for
re-hearing will be filled in the su-
preme court within a few days. AS
to the granting of an order of injunc-
ton pending the re-hearing and the
final decision of the case is a ques-
ton. Undoubtedly an effort will be
made to test the entire constitution
ality of the act. this being one of the
ultimate plans of those who have
been carrying the prohibition act
and law before the upper court.
Should there be no injunction or
restraining order issued the effect of
the decision will be to prevent the
sale of near beer and all malt or
brewed beverages. The home brew
cry will Immediately stop, as 1t is
just as much against the law, under
this decision to sell or have near beer
as II is to have whisky or any other