Case Name: The State of Washington, Respondent, v. J. W. Critzer, Appellant; The City of Spokane, Respondent, v. J. W. Critzer, Appellant
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1922-10-25
Citations: 122 Wash. 88
Docket Number: No. 17077
Parties: The State of Washington, Respondent, v. J. W. Critzer, Appellant. The City of Spokane, Respondent, v. J. W. Critzer, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 122
Pages: 88–89

Head Matter:
[No. 17077.
Department Two.
October 25, 1922.]
The State of Washington, Respondent, v. J. W. Critzer, Appellant. The City of Spokane, Respondent, v. J. W. Critzer, Appellant.
Intoxicating Liquors (27, 30)&emdash;Offenses&emdash;Liquors Prohibited&emdash; “Moonshine Whiskey.” A conviction of manufacturing whiskey is sustained by evidence of the active operation of a still for the manufacture of “moonshine whiskey” distilled from corn mash, without proof of the percentage of its alcoholic content, even though it was shown to be not of the same degree as standard whiskey.
Appeal from judgments of the superior court for Spokane county, Oswald, J., entered June 4, 1921, upon a trial and conviction of consolidated prosecutions for the violation of liquor laws.
Affirmed.
F. C. Highsmith, for appellant.
J. M. Geraghty and Arthur L. Hooper, for respondent City of Spokane.
Wm. C. Meyer and M. R. Morton, for respondent State of Washington.
Reported in 209 Pac. 1081.

Opinion:
Hovey, J.
-Defendant was charged by the state with manufacturing intoxicating liquor in Spokane county, and another charge was made against him by the city of Spokane of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor in violation of the city ordinances. The two cases were consolidated and tried by one jury, and the defendant was convicted in each case.
The evidence showed that defendant had a still in the basement of the building occupied by him which was in active operation at the time he was arrested, and that from corn mash he was producing distilled moonshine whiskey. Samples of the liquor were in troduced in evidence and its character was testified to by several witnesses. The percentage of alcohol in the liquor was not shown, and appellant makes the point in this court that, inasmuch as it appeared from the testimony that moonshine whiskey has not the same degree of proof as standard whiskey, there was not sufficient evidence to go to the jury under the charges made, and it is claimed that moonshine whiskey is not embraced within the term "whiskey." The statute expressly names whiskey as one of the liquors which it is forbidden to manufacture or possess and the law is not concerned with the degree of its strength. The liquor in question is the distilled product of corn, and the fact that it had only gone through one process of distillation does not render it any the less a commodity prohibited by law.
Both of the judgments will be affirmed.
Parker, C. J., Main, Holcomb, and Mackintosh, JJ., concur.