Case Name: State v. Wright
Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire
Decision Date: 1895-06
Citations: 68 N.H. 351
Docket Number: 
Parties: State v. Wright.
Judges: Carpenter, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
Reporter: New Hampshire Reports
Volume: 68
Pages: 351–352

Head Matter:
Cheshire,
June, 1895.
State v. Wright.
On the trial of an indictment for keeping malt liquor for sale, the question whether a sample of beer analyzed by a chemist was part of that kept for sale by the defendant is one of fact for the jury.
Evidence that beer-kegs bearing United States revenue stamps were found in the defendant’s warehouse, is competent as tending to show that they contained malt liquor.
Indictment, for keeping malt liquor for sale, September 10, 1894. The defendant admitted that on that day he kept for sale “ Mascot beer,” and the defence was that such beer is not malt liquor. Trial by jury. Verdict for the state.
Subject to the defendant’s exception, witnesses testified'that on October 22, 1894, six bottles of beer were obtained by W. of the defendant, who told W. they had been in his possession since September 10, and that he thought they would show more alcohol than when fresh; that the bottles were kept over night without special guard in the police station, to which several officers had access, and the next day were taken to a chemist, who analyzed the contents of five and found they were malt liquor. The jury were instructed to acquit the defendant unless they found that the beer analyzed was apart of the “ Mascot beer ” kept for sale on September 10,1894, by the defendant.
Subject to the defendant’s exception, a witness testified that on September 10, 1894, he saw United States revenue stamps on the beer-kegs in the defendant’s warehouse, and that bottles found there were labeled “ Mascot beer.”
Charles H. Horsey, solicitor, for the state.
Murray $ Lyons (of Massachusetts), for the defendant.

Opinion:
Clark, J.
Evidence of the defendant's statement, that the beer delivered to W., October 22, 1894, had been in his possession since September 10, was competent as an admission against his interest. Whether the beer analyzed by the chemist and found to be malt liquor was a part of the " Mascot beer " kept for sale by the defendant on September 10, 1894, was purely a question of fact, and was properly submitted to the jury under instructions sufficiently favorable to the defendant. The evidence that United States revenue stamps were seen on beer-kegs in the defendant's warehouse on September 10, 1894, was competent as tending to show that the kegs contained malt liquor; and the keeping for sale of any malt liquor could properly be proved under the indictment.
Fxceptions overruled.
Carpenter, J., did not sit: the others concurred.