The Leavenworth echo. [volume] (Leavenworth, Wash.) 1904-current, 1921-08-12
JOCK MILLER
RA|DfD, ARRESTED,
FOUND NOT GUILTY
TRIED MONDAY BEFORE 4 JURY
OF FIVE IN JUSTICE DAVIS
COURT. LEBECk AND LIND
LEY ATTORNEYS.

o. c. (Jock) Miller was arrested
last Friday night in raid on his
home and put up a cash bond of five
Hundred dollars for his appearance
fol trial Monday afternoon at ) o
clock. \ search warrant had been is
sued upon the complaint of Deputy
Sheriff Hall and the search of his
hcme resulted in about fifty bottles
OF "home brew (tcrmed beer). a gal
Ion of what was called cherry wine
and a box of raisins being seized and
held as evidence. There were also a
couple jars.
The case was called by Justice Da-
Wis at about 1 o'clock and Miller.
through his attorney, J. T. Lindcy,
asked for jury trial. w. j. Watson.
F.. H. Ball, VIM. Anderson, f. G. Cow
ing and H. S. Rearick were drawn as
jurors and the trial proceeded
Officer Tom Cannon was sworn AMI
testified to going with Deputy Sheriff
Hall to make the search and to find
ing the home brew and other exhibit
IL Mlller's house and of his arrest.
Sheriff Forsyth was sworn and asked
by Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Le-
beck if he was qualified to judge as to
whether liquor was Intoxicating AMI
what his qualifications were. He an
swered that he was qualified and stat
ed that he had drunk intoxicating
liouor all his life whenever he coull
get it. He was then asked to samp;.
the home brew and give his opinion
which he did, pronouncng it "thc
real stuff and claiming that because
it had biting or singing effect it
contained alcohol.
The defendant. Miller, was sworn in
his own behalf and asked how long h.
had had the box Of raisins in his pos
session and what he used raisins for.
He stated that he had had the raisns
IN his possession fer over year and
that he occasionally used them for
pies and other cooking. The prose
'"'''S 'ttoiitH tSkcu MIN TO SCaJC
how he had made the liquors in evi-
dence. This was objected to by the
defendants attorney and the objec-
ton sustained. This closed the tax
ing of evidence.
Attorney Lebeck then addressed
the court and jury, quoting extracts
from the law and arguing that any
thing known as beer, whiskey, rum,
vine, etc, was under the Washington
law Q915) presumed to be intoxicat
ing liquor and its possession was
prima facie ton first view evidence
oi the violation of the law and pun
ishable under the 1921 amendment.
Attorney Lindley spoke for the de-
fendant, taking the stand that the
law provided penalties for the posse,
sion, manufacture or TRANSPORTATION
OF Intoxicating liquor for the purpose
of sale, barter or exchange. and that
mere possession of home brewed OF
fclmented liquors for the use of the
individual in whose possession they
were found-and not sold or for sale.
barter or eXchange-was not a viola
ton of the law. CThere was no evi
dence of the sale, barter or eXchang,
OF the liquor by the defendant).
Mr.. Lebeck then summed up for I've
state
The jury then retired. taking sev-
eral bottles of the so-calcd beer into
the jury room with them. They re-
turned in perhaps ten or fifteen min
utes with their verdict. which was
mot guilty"
The defendant was accordingly dis
charged and his bond returned -
him, and it is understood that thi,
ends this case-that is that it cannot
be appealed by the state.