Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-06-29

by Judge j. b. Leslie III an oTueI
handed down Wednesday afternoon.
The court held that the testimony in
PRODUCED at the hearing, which was
concluded Wednesday noon. did not
warrant an order of confiscatiOn.
Under the decision of Judge Leslie,
the property of the defendant COM
pany. seized under a search warrant
on June 8, is to be restored to the
owners. The property is said to repre-
sent an investment of approximately
$4,000, according to an estimate
made by Walter II. Jensen. one of the
proprietors of the brewery.
Walker Analyses Six Bottles
The order Of dismissal was based
principally on the analysis made
Tuesday night by DR.. Thomas F.
Walker on order of the court. Six
bottles of beer, taken from the brew
cry Tuesday afternoon by Deputy
Sheriff Fred Huotari, tested less than
one-half Of one per cent, DIR. Walker
testified on the witness stand, with
the exception of one bottle which con-
tanned an alcoholic content of .o3 per
cent. While this bottle represented
a technical violation Of the statute
Judge Leslie held that it was too tri-
vial to warrant the confiscatlon n
uNSIIuCliOh VI lhC
Court Reviews Evidence
Judge Leslie's review of the evidence
in the case which was made a part or
the order, is as follows: J.,
Three bottles of beer were received
in evidence, which witness tor the
state. and who were prohibition en-
forcemept officers. testified were
taken from the stock of the bottllns
works of defendant brewing company;
one taken from a case at the freight
depot in Great Falls. consigned to a
person at Gilman by the defendant
brewing company; and five others pur-
chased from soft drink pariors IN
Great Falls and claimed to be the
product of said brewing company. ana
ono taken from a key in the rewln
plant of defendant. :.
These various bottles were submit
ted BY the state witnesses, aforesaid
to DR.. Thomas f. Walker, WHO testl,,
fled as to the alcoholic content; anu
which showed the presence OF alcohol
r.ry;rg from 6S per cent to For
the defense one DR.. Easton. a m
testified that he selected, ar random'
from the stock of defendants bottllns
uorks siY hotties Of beer of defendants
nroduct. without assistance or direction
If anyone, and his analysis showed ,nt
presence of alcohol in each case WITHIN
the limit allowed by law.
"HopeIess Confusion in Evidence
1.-The brewer of defendant testlileo
that the stock Of beer on hand con
s;sted Of not to exceed two breWs'
that thew did not exceed the aiconolic
content limit allowed by law. "nei
If is considered that the bottles ana
wed for the state. consisting o, mn.
~ the bottled product and one claineo
to have been taken from q Kes oi
defendants brewery, showed such ~
versified volume in alcohohc con'eh'.
ranging from sc per cen 10 foo Psi
cent. and no explanation Tor 'he us
repanc having been SHOWN tnr .uha : :
deemed the testimony In some"ha'
boneIess confusion, and thereupon
made an order directing the sheriff.
in the presence of the attorneys LOT
both %parties. to go to detendah's
hottlinp works and select, at random
and without direction from anyone:
s;x hotties of defendants stock an
cause the same to be Analysed by Dr.
Walker. in the presence ana WIN Tue
co-operation of DIR. Easton. analyst lot
the defendant. which was done, and
thereupon DIR. Walker was recalled ana
testified as to his analysis OF the SIX
bottles. which showed the presence OF
as. Al. 80, Al. As, and % per cent,
all within the statutory limit, except
the one exceeding the limit by 10 per
cent. which it must be confessed Is
q technical violation Of the statute. but
too trivial to warrant the confiscatIon
and destruction of the defendants
property. ,.
The court is of the opinion that the
+ectimonv in This case would not war
rant an order confiscating and con
demning the property seized under thf
search warrant herein
Charge Some Beer Destroyed
The state sought TO show Wednesday
morning, after DIR. Walker had an
noupced the results of his tests, that a
portion Of the liquor supply in storage
in the brewery b~ottling plant had been
DESTROYED on the day following the
seizure. This was brought out in the
examination by the state of Donald
C%hrisholm. SIS Sixth avenue south.
who was employed at the brewery at
the time of the seizure, but his testi-
mony was described as too vague and
indefinite to give material help to the
states cause.
Chrisholm testified that he was at
work packing beer in barrels on the
morning of June 10. when several men
came into the bottling plant. He was
asked if he did not observe the men
empty several cases of beer on the
floor of the plant. He said that he
lid. with much reluctance and hesita-
ton. He could not tell how many
cases were emptied nor how many men
were involved in the alleged act. He
said he didn't see very much of it.
Counsel had difficulty questioning
Chrisholm and the court chided him
several times for apparent inattention.
Chrisholm's testimony was not refuted.
Or. Walker Called to Stand
The state appeared somewhat reluct-
ant to place DIR. Walker on the stand
but Judge Leslie insisted upon it with
the statement that he would question
the witness himself if the state would
not. Counsel for the state wanted it
understood that they would not be
bound by the analyses because the
conditions of Tuesday were different
from those Of the day Of the seizure.
You agreed to this arrangement
Tuesday" said the court. "and I want
to know the results of the test for
my own information. AS far as there
being a change in condition. the evil
dence shows that there were more than
300 cases Of bottled beer in the bottline
plant IN June 10, and the evidence also
shows that IL were taken out that