Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-08-06
WINE BRICK CASE
RAISES LAW POINTS
FOR COURT DECISION
CONTINUED prom FIRST Page.)

ment have been strictly confined, in
the first place, to the authority granted
by law, and in the second place to the
interpretations by the court Of the
prohibition laws.
The prohibition act itself specifically
allows the home maker to produce fruit
juices in his own home, provided they
do not become intoxicating beverages.
While prohibition officials have at
tempted to enforce this part of the
law, allowing fruit juices to be manu-
featured but preventing alcoholic bev-
erages. the Government at times has
met with sharp rebuffs In its attempts
For instance, Baltimore jury years
ago held that wine made by former
Representative John Philip Hill in his
own home. which proved quite large
alcoholic content, was not in fact in
toxicating to the point that Hill coul6
be found guilty. He was acquitted Of
the charge Of violating the law.
| Disposition Of the wine brick case
| probably Will bring into consideration
both the part of the law which pro-
hibitS the sale Of materials specifically
intended for the manufacture of intoxi-
eating beverages and also the now ia.
nous "Danovitz" decision of the Su-
| preme Court of the United States Thic
decision Is better known as the cork
key and bottle" decision and held that
the Government was authorized to sei5t
1 such properties when intent" to violate
| the prohibition law could be proven.
| weasel Advertising" Charged.
The wine brick case, 1t was predicted
today, also is very likely to bring up the
interesting question of so-called "wease
| advertising" This kind of advertising
which at one time in the history of the
United States brought a number oi
| firms before the courts on one kind Of
a charge or another, is a negative, Oh
prohibitory, sort of advertising.
According to reports from New Yorl
on the wine brick case, it is believed
here that weasel advertising" mus
have figured in the matter. For In
stance the attendants of the wine brici
shop were quoted as having told tn,
customers not to let the solution stans
too long.
Purchasers were warned that "if tn
| brick Is placed in g gallon Of water ant
| left for several weeks, 1t viii beconl
wine. so you should drink 1t right
| away after mixing it."
Deny Instructing Agents.
The manager of the shop was quote,
as denying that the prohibition agent
had been told how to make wine. H
and his aides. despite their heavy bust
ness, had been most careful, he said
i to inform all purchasers that the brick
will produce q Is per cent alcoholit
content If left standing too long.
Warrants for the raids were issuet
under section 10 of the prohibition act
which prohibits the sale of articles de
signed for the manufacture of illega
beverages. This was interpreted her
as further evidence that the Govern
ment viii use both this section of tn
law and the famous DanovitZ cork
key, and bottle" decision, TO bolster "
the charges of its agents.
One Of the biggest difficulties face
by the Government in enforcing tn
law against homemade wine Of intoxi
eating quality is the trouble in gettin
evidence, 1t was pointed out by the bu
reau. A mans home cannot be raidei
without warrant and to get a war
rant for liquor raid there must b
evidence Of sale. 1t is difficult for
prohibition agent to make buy" in
mans home, where he is making win
for his own consumption only. So tn
whole question is drawn about by I'm
lines Of law, both protecting the sane
tity Of the home and attempting to en-
force the dry laws.