Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1921-04-13
HAD VITAL BEAR.
ING UP0NDRY
R. A. Vok Found Guilty Of Illicit
Sale Of Liquor By Dist. Court
In Verdict Wednesday

:
The litigation Of the State of Min
nesota versus Ralph A. Volk, owner
of a grocery on Litchfield Ave. E..
terminated Wednesday at 4:30 o'clock
and a verdict from the jury returned
before the Court at 8 o'clock the same
evening The decision of the twelve
was a conviction Of the defendant
The case commenced on Tuesday NOR
ming at II o'clock. The defendant
was upheld in the case by Attys C. S.
Cary and John D. Greathouse of Min
neapolis, we'll known criminal law
yers. Prosecuting Atty. Charles John
son capably presented the State
charge. After the jury's verdict the
Judge granted stay of proceedings
of any kind on the case until
April Both. The sentence may range
from fine of 500 to $500. Volk is a
man of 20 years of age.
The evidence showed that VOlk
sold an extract containing l.95
per cent alcohol to a person on the
two days of Jan. 23rd and oath, 1921,
at his grocery on Litchfield Ave.
The States witness testified
that on the 23rd he purchased three
bottles and on the oath two bottles Of
the same extract He testified that
he bot it to drink and that he Ques-
toned Volk before making the pur-
chase if the former had any of the
liquid. The extract bottle bore the
label of a recognized and we'll known
extract manufacturer. Extract, the
chemist who tested the liquid before
the jury said, can contain 60 per cent
of alcohol and be within the pale OF
the law. The chemist, Mr.. Van Cleve
of Minneapolis, stated that the liquid
in question was only seven per cent
less than 100 proof whiskey in
strength and intoxication influence.
In proceeding with the case the
State had to prove three points either
one of two first proved untrue would
dispose of the case.
First-That the liquid was sold to
the states witness.
Second, That the liquid was intox-
icating.
Third, that the liquid was sold for
beverage purposes.
The States witness testified that he
purchased the liquid. the chemist tes.
tilted that it was intoxicating and
the witness testified that it was
for beverage purposes. The defense
sought to prove that the liquid was
not to sold to the witness and it was
not sold for beverage purposes.
Proof advanced by the prosecuting
Atty. Johnson to show that the liquid
was sold as a beverage was partly
substantiated in the testimonies OF
several persons as to the class or
persons frequenting the Vo:k Grocery.
One person testified that several
persons were seen emerging from the
grocery in a drunken condition. The
defense also sought to show that the
witness did not call at the store on
the dates specified in the complaint.
This case was of a different type
than liquor cases generally and it
disclosed some of the defects in the
law. The State must prove in the law
that the liquid, even tho it contained
the maximum per cent Of SO, was sold
for beverage purposes. 1t is entirely
clear that the law as it thus reads is
perforated with loophOles and can be
circumscribed by a shrewd salesman.
The defense have threatened to bring
the case to the State Supreme Court.
The following served on the jury:
Frans Lund, Ole E. Erickson, Victor
E. Johnson. Carl Gabrielson, Henry
Isaacson, Martin Shipstead, o. T. Hag-
en-, Cornelius Olson, Julius Holland,
n. E. Halvorson, Fred Johnson and 0.
j. Orson.