South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1920-06-29
CITY COURT HOLDS
NIGHT SESSION TO
TRYLIQUOR CASES
Stromer Gets 500 and 90
Days-Atty. Gilliom APP
peals Case.
CONTINUED FROM PAGE ONED

! a man 70 taste alcohol in a liquid. |
| 10 which Helder repliedSthat II il
/ contained more than 10 per cent the
] average man should be able to taste
! IL. Asked IL ne could taste alcohol
] in the liquid. the doctor announced
\ that he was perfectly willing TO try.
! SO be got a drink from each bottle,
/ giving. between drinks. his opinion
/ Of the alcoholic volume.
Then came the defense witnesses.
most of them being brought in APP
! parently experts on intOxicauts.
Expert on Liquor.
First was Joe NoOrde, county as
/ SCISSOR and formerly in the liquor
! business Joe came prepared for
| regular party and was without his
collar or coat. He sampled the first
liquid and pronounced il grape juice.
| Then Pros. Schwartz asked:
You wouldn't mind having an
other little drink, would you"
! 'Not at all. not at ALL" responded
the willing witness.
Al the first sample Joe was frown-
! ing but when the fifth bottle was
reached he smiled broadly The
party wasn't so bad after all. Even
the prosecutor couldn't remove the
| smile.
The climax came when the sample
from the Stromers private stock was
| served.
How does that taste" asked
| Schwartz.
Good" answered Joe, simply. but
! with world of feeling.
Dad n Wincmakcr.
Next for the defense came Ed
| SHEPPARD of a local brewery. But IL
developed that he had worked there
only three weeks and that they were
not manufacturing an intoXicant
where he worked. The state was
puzzled to know how three weeks in
a near brewery. could qualify one as
an expert on wines but II developed
that in the years past Eds father
had been a winemaker. Gilliom did
not cross examine.
Then there stepped to the bar
John Paris, who was at StromerS
when the raid was made John was
d friend of Stromers and testified
that the defendant led the agents 10
/ where the barrels were in the cellar
and explained that the private stock
was never sold but that he had
tasted II.
Asked how he became expert in
identifying liquors. John said by go
ing into saloons TO drink.
"Oh," remarked Schwartz, $50 you
paid for your college education"
Yes, sir" John came right back
at the state, land l was a street car
conductor for eight years"
But John couldn't explain why he
paid 25 cents for sour grape-tuice
EXCEPT 20 say that he didn't like
near beer and he hated to drink
water.
Stromcr Takes Stand.
Following this witness the defend
ant, StrOmer. took the stand. He
said that he had bought the grape
juice from a man named GREENE;
that IL had been shipped from Cali
fornia and was labeled California
Grape Juice" together with the
name of the manufacturer and the
town in California from which II
| came.
Two thousand and thirty-fivo dol
lars was the sum Stromer said he
paid for the fourteen barrels of
which seven were sold before the
| raid. At SO per gallon he had sold il
in four ounce glasses for % cents per
glass. realizing approximately 80 per
gallon.
He admitted the sale but said he
did rot know il was intoxicating and
| contained more than the legal
This concluded the testimony and
| Atty Gilliom rose for his first argu-
| ment.
! In an impassioned plea the lawyer
stated that there was great deal OF
! undue excitement in this town and
that II was due in a great measure 10
the manner Of enforcing the federal
law.
Quotes Editorial
Quoting an editorial which APP
| peared in the South Bend Tribune in
which il was advised that the state
force an arrested person 10 prove
! himself innocent rather than for the
state to prove him guilty, Gilliom de-
clared that this was subverting the
/ equitable and legal order OF things
and that in all courts II was recog-
| niZed that a man is innocent until
the prosecution step by step shall
show him guilty
Gilliom contended that nature was
TO blame and not Stromer. because
the grape Juice had fermented dur
ing the hot weather.
Gnliom declared that IL required
! more moral courage on the part or
the court 10 acquit StrOmer than 10
\ convict him because he said, the eN-
element Of the present time due 10
public or inion might influence the
! court IN finding an opinion Of guilt
Makes Rebuttal.
| Schwartz made a brief rebuttal,
saying that so far as he was con-
! cerned the cases were not being tried
| by semi-public opinion nor by the
! press Rather they were being tried
on evidence offered in open court
4 Frank Gilmer. He reviewed the tes-
timony laying stress on the fact that
| Stromer having been long in the sa
loon business certainly knew that
! the LIQUID sold was intoxicating.
Judge Gilmer then summed UP all
| Of the evidence presented. beginning
! with the following statement:
IT am trying these cases on the
! evidence presented here and on moth
] ing else. I have noted what Atty
Gilliom says regarding public opin
| ion. IL IS unfortunate but true that
rules of law seem a times 70 force
a decision, just and fair enough. GER
| tainly. but misunderstood by those
| not familiar with the law.
My opinion iss that man sells
this liquid at his peril. IL he is with
out knowledge OF its alcoholic vol
| ume. that is no defense
IT believe him not only guilty but
believe that he knew II was wine
when he had watched II ferment and
! then continued the sale.
The Judgment will be 800 and