Audubon Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Iowa) 1894-1925, 1921-06-30
JUDGE RENDERS OPINION
Noted Kingsbury Case is Reversed
by Supreme Court in no
Uncertain Terms

Last week the Republican contain
ed news item which referred to the
reversal of the case Of the State of
Iowa VS. NJ. o. Kingsbury, of this
city. The case in question is one in
which Kingsbury was charged with
the crime of bootlegging. 1t was
tried In the Audubon county dis
trict court about year ago. Kings
bury was found guilty and fined
$500. Through his attorneys the
case was carried to the supreme
court.
Because of the interest taken in
the case and the thorough manner
in which the evidence was reviewed,
we publish herewith the opinion
written by Justice Faville and con-
Cured in by Judges Evans, Stevens
and Arthur. The opinion is as fol-
lows:
'"The appellant was indicted by
the Grand Jury of Audubon County,
charged with the crime of bootlegg-
ing, alleged to have been committed
on or about August IT, 1919. The
evidence in behalf of the state
tended TO show that on the evening
of the day in question one Roth, a
barber, met the appellant in front
of the barber shop, and that appell-
ant invited him to come up to his
office, which he did. Roth claims
that at this time the appellant gave
him a drink of whiskey from a bott-
lie and that they talked at that time
about the appellant selling the
witness four quarts of liquor.
The witness testified that later in
the evening he met the appellant
and that they took ride in an auto
mobile, and that the appellant had
four quart bottles which were
wrapped in newspaper and tied with
strong cord. These II is claimed,
were delivered to the witness, who
paid the appellant eleven dollars per
bottle therefor. The witness testi-
fled that after he got the four bott-
les, he took them to place near the
canning factory, reaching there by
a circuitous route through various
alleys; that he set them down, open
ed the bundle and pulled out bott-
lie and took a drink; that he just
saw the one bottle and that II had
on Il label bearing the words
"old Taylor"
The witness seems to be rather
hazy in his recollection as to jlst
when and where the witnesses.
Campbell and Hansen, Joined him in
the festivities, but testified that they
were present at the canning factory
and that they also drank from this
bottle. Roth, it appears, was some
what of connoisseur, and after
tasting the liquor expressed himself
in no uncertain terms as being
thoroughly dissatisfied with his pur-
chase. He Immediately announced
to his colleagues, Hansen and Camp
bell, that he was going to return
to the appellant forthwith and de-
mand a restoration of his money.
However, he made no attempt 20
effectuate a legal decision of the
contract, for he neglected to return
the property purchased or otherwise
place the appellant in statu quo.
Whether or not he deemed the
merchandise contraband and subject
to confiscation, does not appear, but
while gone on his mission to receive
reservation of the purchase price, he
left the liquor in the custody of his
two associates, requesting Hansen
to take care of it during his absence,
Hansen testified that he put the
bottles in an old barn, which was
open and left them there. Roth
claims that he saw the appellant and
got his money back and that
he then fell in with three other
companions Foley. Phillips and
Nelson, who accompanied him to
the vicinity of the Hansen barn.
Hansen took Roth to the barn where
he got four bottles and took them
away in ansautomobile, accompanied
by his three friends. These parties
then went to place described as the
Mash Bridge" on the outskirts or
the town, where. with these new
comrades, Roth again sampled the
contents of the bottle which had
been opened. Not being treasured
regarding the quality of the stuff by
this experience, Roth placed the four
bottles in the weeds by the roadside
south of the Nash Bridge. A paper
was wrapped about them and the
necks were exposed. The bottles
were not sealed, but were closed
yyitb ordinarv corks The evidence