Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-08-11
LIQUOR RULING
NOT DISTURBING
Judge Pritchard's Decision
Largely Technical as Affect
ing Law Enforcement.

The ruling Of City Judge Walter
Prsochsrd that the possession OF a
gallon or less Of Intoxicating liquor
-'rightfuny acquired" for personal use,
before the passage OF the 1921 amendment
to section four Of the 1917 Indiana pro-
hibition act. is legal, may result In the
police and the prosecutor working upon
different lines In the enforcement Of the
prohibition statute.
Judge Pritchard made the ruling IN
the case OF Nicholas Smith, 1928 North
Chester avenue, who was charged with
violating the prohibition law by having
a small quantity OF liquor in his home.
The defense attacked the validity Of the
search warrant and cOntended that the
liquor in question was obtained legal
IT," having been in the home for years
for medical purposes.
WHY RULING
Is IMPORTANT.
The courts ruling is important be-
cause It is the first time that an In
diana court has been called upon 10 in
terpret the scope Of an amendment made
to section four Of the 1917 prohibition
act by the last general assembly. The
defense contended that the 1921 amend
ment did not repeal the clause Of the
original act which permitted citizen
10 have in his possession a certain
quantity OF Intoxicating liquor prior TO
the enforcement OF the 1917 prohibition
statute.
Judge Phitchard in passing upon the
points in question. held as follows:
Long ago, Chief Justice Marshall laid
down the proposition that the power TO
regulate implied the power to prohibit;
that questions OF power do not depend
upon the degree TO which they may be
exercised. Without celebrating, It is
our opinion that the Legislature has the
power, under the constitution, to pro-
hibis the possession Of intoxicating
liquor.
QUOTES OLD
LAW PRINCIPLE.
"The fact that the Legislature did not
repeal Section So of the so-called blind
tiger act, is, in our opinion, Of no import
ance, as the Supreme Court has held
that this section does not define q public
Ofense. but merely defines a rule Of evil
dence.
However, it is an old principle OF in
terpretGtion Of statutes that, If a section
is susceptible Of two construction, one
favorable to the defendant and one un-
favorable, it is the duty Of the court to
give effect TO that construction which is
favorable. In the recent amendment Of
Section 4 OF the prohibition act, several
coordinate clauses are separated by the
distinctive or but all in the same
section. which sentence ends with the
phrase, in violation Of the laws OF this
State II this phrase may or may not
modify the word possess used in the
first clause Of this section then It is the
duty Of the court to construe 1t as modt-
tying the word. making the clause read
it shall be unlawful to possess intox-
icatingf liquors in violations Of law
TT is the courts opinion that intoxi-
eating liquor in less quantities than
gallon rightfuny acquired for his own
use before the passage Of this amend
ment is lawfully held" the court held.
AUTHORITIES NOT
DISTURBED.
In numerous cases in the city court the
police have testified Of finding small
quantities of whisky, such as two half
pint bottles filed with whisky, in
mans home and arrests have been made
on the finding Of that small quantity.
Convictions have often resulted on proof
The ruling Of Judge Pfitchard is not
very disturbing to the authorities be-
cause it is pointed out that there gen
orally IS sufficient evidence to indicate
when and how liquor has been purchas ed.
Also the original act holds that it IS
prima facia evidence that quantities of
Intoxicating liquor in amounts larger
than exempted in the 1917 act is held
for purpose OF sale.
The point at issue appears to be-has
the whisky found in small quantities in
homes been purchased prior to the en-
actment Of the amendment to the prohi
bition act?
Federal revenue stamps viii also have
an important bearing in determining
this factor, authorities contend.
Judge VIII Sparks, who presided in
the Haag case in the Criminal Court,
held that a druggist in this State has no
legal right to sell whisky for medical
purposes