STATE DISPENSARY-CONSTITUTIONAL AS POLICE REGULA

TION.

A state law prohibiting the sale of liquors by others, though, by authorizing and providing for the establishment of dispensaries for their sale by agents of the state, it recognizes such liquors as the subject of legitimate commerce, is a regulation of their sale, which is a proper exercise of the police powers of the state.

Vance vs. Vandercook, U. S. Sup. Ct., 1898.

DISPENSARY LAW DOES NOT REPEAL OTHER LAWS.—

The South Carolina dispensary laws do not repeal by implication prior laws forbidding the sale of intoxicating liquors in various localities in the state.

Bailey Liquor Co. vs. Austin, 82 Fed. 785.

CHAPTER X.

MALT LIQUORS AND BREWERS.

BREWERS MUST PAY WAREHOUSE TAX IN OHIO.

The question of brewers paying the Dow liquor tax for warehouses was decided by the Supreme Court of Ohio in the case of the Jung Brewing Company, of Cincinnati, against Geo. A. Talbott, treasurer of Champaign County, as follows:

A manufacturer of intoxicating drinks who carried on the business of selling them elsewhere than at the manufactory, is engaged in the traffic within the purview of section 4364-9, of the revised statutes, and subject to the tax thereby imposed.

It is not essential to a valid imposition of the tax that the traffic be carried on in a building or structure, or fixed

place of business. Selling and delivering the liquors to customers from a vehicle provided for that purpose is a method of carrying on the business that is subject to the tax, unless it is done in connection with and as part of a traffic in which the proprietor is engaged on which he has raid the tax.

When the traffic is so carried on by the sale and delivery from wagons as a separate and independent business, and the liquors are supplied from a storehouse where they are kept on hand for sale in that manner, in charge of a local agent, the storehouse may properly be regarded as the seller's place of business.

Hanson vs. Luce, and Monaghan vs. Luce, 50 Ohio statutes, 440, distinguished...Judgment affirmed.

RBEWER'S LICENSE NOT NEEDED IN ILLINOIS.—

The Illinois Supreme Court has handed down a decision holding unconstitutional and void the ordinance of Chicago which requires a brewer's license from all persons selling malt liquor within the city.

City of Chicago vs. Henry Kiel, agent Herman Berghoff Brewing Company of Fort Wayne, Ind.

BREWERS-LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT CARRYING ON BUSINESS.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania holds, in the case of the Phoenix Brewing Company vs. Rumbarger, May 17, 1897, that the second section of the Act of April 14, 1863, requiring the branding of barrels and casks in which liquors are sold, and the giving of a certificate to the purchaser, does not prohibit the prosecution of the business when its provisions are not complied with, but only provides a separate penalty for a failure to observe them.

BREWING COMPANY MAY HAVE LICENSE FOR DIFFERENT

BREWERIES.

A brewing company has a right to a license for more than one brewery operated by it.

In re Consumers' Brewing Co.'s Licenses, 7 Pa. Dist. R. 193.

BEER AND ALL MALT LIQUORS INTOXICATING.—

In a prosecution for an illegal sale of beer, it is not Lecessary for the jury to determine whether the liquor sold was intoxicating, in addition to finding that it was beer, since beer, which is judicially known to be a malt liquor, is an intoxicating liquor, under Horner's Rev. St. 1897, section 5313 (Burns' Rev. St. 1894, Section 7277), providing that the words "intoxicating liquor" shall apply to any malt liquor.

Douglas vs. State, Ind., 52 N. E. Rep. 238.

INDIANA BEER TAX VALID.—

The State Supreme Court of Indiana, in 1894, decided that the ordinance passed by the local council of Indianapolis in 1891, requiring out-of-town breweries to pay a tax of $1,000 for the privilege of doing business in this city, is valid. The decision reverses the decision rendered by the Circuit Court.

BEER PRESUMED TO BE INTOXICATING.—

Beer is presumed to be intoxicating within the meaning of the prohibitory law.

State vs. May, Kan., 34 Pac. Rep. 407.

BEER-JURY WARRANTED IN FINDING THAT BEER IS INTOXICATING.

Where defendant's barkeeper testifies that he sold intoxicating liquor to a minor, and that it was beer, the jury are warranted in finding that the beer was intoxicating. Commonwealth vs. Gavin, Mass., 36 N. E. Rep. 484.

"BEER" UNDERSTOOD TO BE THE FERMENTED MALT LIQUOR IN COMMON USE.—

Witnesses testifying to the sale of "beer" at a drinking saloon where intoxicating liquors are sold may be understood as meaning the fermented malt beer in common use as a beverage.

State vs. Dick, Minnesota, 50 N. W. Rep 362.

BEER SUBJECT TO SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE.—

Malt liquor, admitted to be intoxicating, is liable to seizure and forfeiture under the act providing that "any spirituous liquors" kept for sale in violation of law may be seized and forfeited.

State vs. Lager Beer (N. H.), 39 Atl. R. 255.

BEER-SALICYLIC ACID IN BEER PROHIBITED IN OHIO.—

In 1897 the Supreme Court of Ohio decided that it is an offense against the pure food laws of that state to use salicylic acid in beer. The decision of the court is as follows: "A sale of beer as food containing salicylic acid without a label on the package notifying the purchaser that it contains such an ingredient, is, when found to be poisonous or deleterious to health by its continuous or indiscriminate use, an offense against the pure food laws of this state."

BEER-INTOXICATING QUALITY A QUESTION FOR JURY.—

Under a statute which does not specifically name the liquors the sale of which as a beverage it prohibits, but considers and holds all liquors intoxicating which are spirituous, malt, vinous, or fermented, as well as all mixtures thereof which will produce intoxication, the malt or intoxicating quality of beer, when in question, should be shown by the evidence, the weight and sufficiency of which is for the court or jury, as the case may be.

State vs. Sioux Falls Brewing Co., S. Dak., 58 N. W. Rep. 1.

BREWERS-CONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.

A contract by which the buyer agrees to keep for sale no beer except that furnished by the seller, and the seller agrees to sell to no other persons at a certain town, is within Sayles' Ann. Civ. St. 1897, art. 5313, avoiding contracts to restrain trade, or prevent competition in the sale of commodities.

Texas Brewing Co. vs. Durrum, Tex., 46 S. W. Rep. 880.

CHAPTER XI.

DRUGGISTS.

DRUGGISTS-PATENT MEDICINE OR DISTILLED SPIRITS.—

The term "domestic distilled spirits," as used in the law requiring retail liquor dealers to pay a special tax to the United States before engaging in the business, does not include patent or proprietary medicines, manufactured and sold, in good faith, for curative or health-imparting properties, although they may contain a large percentage of distilled spirits as one of their essential ingredients; nor does the fact that men with strong appetites for drink occasionally buy such preparations and by the use of them become drunk, furnish any adequate reason for classifying them as distilled spirits. The law, however, is not to be evaded by mere deceptive names, and if alcoholic beverages in which the essential ingredient is distilled spirits, disguised by aromatic or other drugs, are commonly bought and sold as and for intoxicating beverages, the same are not to be classed as patent or proprietary medicines, by whatever names they may be known, and the seller thereof is liable to the tax as a retail liquor dealer.

United States vs. Wilson, U. S. Dist. Court for Missouri.

DRUGGISTS—SALE OF MALT TONICS.—

Druggists are subject to the regulations of retail liquor dealers if a compound is intoxicating and is sold as a beverage, notwithstanding the fact that the compound may be used as a medicine and was so intended by the manufacturer.

Internal Revenue Circular No. 340. 1895.

SAMPLE BOTTLES DO NOT REQUIRE STAMPS.

A medicinal proprietary article or preparation which is not made for sale nor sold, or removed from the place of manufacture for sale, is not subject to the stamp tax. Hence