The Washington times., 1921-09-16
HUNT IN HOMES
FOR LIQUOR IS
HELD ILLEGAL
D. c. Judge Throws Out Rum
case-Prosecution Fails to
Establish Sale.

Prohibition agents have no author.
ity to enter the privacy Of q mans
dwelling in search of liquor, nor has
United States Commissioner any
authority to Issue ue~warrants for such
authority unless evidence Is shown
that alcoholics are being sold.
Hardison Makes Ruling.
Baslng his opinion on the old
theory that a mans home is his
castle, Judge Robert B. Hardison.
In the United States branch OF Police
Court, made the above ruling in the
case of Mrs. Annie Ashton. 3006
Cambridge street northwest, who was
charged with illegal possession Of
eighty gallons Of alcohol. Judge
Hardison dismissed the case against
the woman.
Testimony given at the trial show
cd that on April last Prohibition
Agent +. T. Rose after obtaining a
search warrant from United States
Commissioner Isaac r. Hit raided
her home and seized the alcohol.
Attacking the validity Of the war.
rant issued by Commissioner Hit. T.
Morris Wampler, attorney for Mrs.
Ashton argued for the dismissal Of
the case against the woman. MI.
Wampler pointed out that Mrs; Ash.
ton at no time had been charged with
selling the alcohol. but was arrested
simply because It had been learned
she had 1t in her possession.
Lawyer Quotes Prohibition Law.
Section Is, Of tho National pro-
hibition law. plainly states" said
Mr.. Wampler, that no search war
rent should be issued to search a
private dwelling Mrs. Ashtons
home was O private dwelling and the
prohibition law cannot be interpreted
in any way to give Federal agents
authority to obtain warrants for such
intrusions."
Judge Hardison fully agreed with
the argument OF Mr.. Wampler and
Immediately dismissed the case.
But Mr.. Wampler Is not satisfied
with the decision of Judge Hardison
alone. He wants the return Of the
alcohol to his client. He petitioned
the court for an order to have the
alcohol returned to Mrs. Ashton. but
Judge Hardison ruled that In as
much as the warrant for the search
and following confiscation Of the
alcohol had been issued by Commits
sioner Hit. the attorney would have
to appeal to the latter official for
the return Of the alchol.
Hit Refuses Return.
wampler then appealed to Commits
sioner Hit for an order OF return for
the alcohol. Commissioner Hit re-
fused TO order its return, declaring II
was in the possession Of the agents OF
the Internal Revenue.
"The whole proposition Is Illegal.
Here Is "a woman abiding by the
law who has her home entered with
out authority and her goods seized.
The court finds her not guilty of any
offense and dismisses her. Now she
is refused the property taken from
her home. 1t matters not whether II
was whiskey, jewelry or household ef-
fects. The fact that II was alcohol
that was seized is no reason why her
property should not be returned to
and I am going to get the return OF
my clients property or a damage suit
will be filed.
Calls Method High Handed.
"The methods being used by some
revenue agents is scarcely beyond be-
lief. Forcing their way into the prt-
vate homes Of our citizens should not
be tolerated and will not be tolerated
by my client, against whom there
has been no proof that she sold liquor
in violation Of any law.
THE burden Of proof rests on the
shoulders of the Federal agents who
arrested her after finding the alcohol.
They have not proven their case, their
acts We're illegal. and now they re-
fuse to return the alcohol which they
Illegally seized"