Court Opinion

ID: 9650548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:43:09.239756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:22.014245
License: Public Domain

YOUMANS, District Judge
(dissenting)-. I concur in the affirmance on the second count, and dissent from the reversal on the first count.
In my opinion the testimony was sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that the alcoholic content of the beer, the sale of which was the basis of the first count, was more than one-half of 1 per cent, by volume. It is true that the alcoholic content of the beer purchased was not ascertained, but on the next day the same officer who had made the purchase returned to the same place with a search warrant, and then found in the portion of the house occupied by plaintiff in error 20 gallons of mash and 820 quarts of home brew beer. Two samples of beer were analyzed by a chemist. One sample contained 2.96 per cent, of alcohol by volume, and the other 3.15 per cent, by volume. The testimony was to the effect that the beer found in the rooms occupied by plaintiff in error was the same in appearance as that purchased from him.