Schraeder v. Sears

• Decision Date: 22 November 1921
• Docket Number: 34074
• Citation: 185 N.W. 110,192 Iowa 604
• Parties: G. E. SCHRAEDER, Plaintiff, v. W. G. SEARS, Judge, Defendant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

185 N.W. 110

192 Iowa 604

G. E. SCHRAEDER, Plaintiff, v. W. G. SEARS, Judge, Defendant

No. 34074

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

November 22, 1921

Certiorari to Woodbury District Court.--W. G. SEARS, Judge.

CERTIORARI to review contempt proceedings instituted on information alleging the violation on the part of the plaintiff herein of a liquor injunction decree of date April 13, 1918. Upon hearing he was found guilty and judgment was entered imposing the fine of $ 200 and costs and statutory attorney fees. --Reversed and judgment annulled.

Annulled and reversed.

Daniel R. Forbes and George E. Hise, for appellant.

John F Joseph, for appellee.

OPINION

DE GRAFF, J.

On April 13, 1918 plaintiff Schraeder was enjoined from selling or keeping for sale intoxicating liquors. On August 14, 1920 an information was filed in said cause alleging that plaintiff herein had violated said injunction and praying that he be held to answer for contempt for the sale and keeping for sale of intoxicating liquors in violation of law. Defendant (plaintiff herein) specifically denied that he had violated in any manner the terms and provisions of the said decree. The testimony introduced upon the trial in the contempt proceedings on behalf of the informant established but two facts: (1) That as a result of a raid on Schraeder's place of business on the afternoon of August 12, 1920 there was found nine whole bottles and two partially filled bottles of Lash's Bitters. (2) That it was conceded and admitted that the said bitters upon analysis contained 16.24 per cent alcohol by volume, and 13.52 per cent by weight.

The sole question presented on the merits of the case is whether the liquor called Lash's Bitters is a beverage the sale of which is prohibited by the state law governing intoxicating liquors. It may be said that some of the testimony defensive in character is neither material nor competent in the determination of the issues. Whether the liquor is in fact intoxicating is immaterial. State v Colvin, 127 Iowa 632, 103 N.W. 968. Whether a liquor is so manufactured as not to be intoxicating in its ordinary use as a beverage is also immaterial. Sawyer v. Botti, 147 Iowa 453, 124 N.W. 787; State v. Klein, 174 N. W. 481. Nor is its name controlling or conclusive. State v. Silka, 179 Iowa 663, 161 N.W. 703; nor where sold or by whom, unless the premises have the reputation as a place where intoxicating liquors are sold or drunkards congregate.

If a liquor contains any per cent of alcohol and is used or is capable of being used as a beverage it is within the purview of the prohibition and is under the ban of the law. This is the true test and in any case where these essentials are established by competent proof the sale or the keeping for sale of such liquor is unlawful. Under such circumstances the fact that other ingredients are mixed or compounded in said liquor is wholly immaterial. If, however, intoxicating liquor is so compounded with other substances or ingredients as to lose its character as an intoxicating liquor, and is therefore no longer capable for use as a beverage, then the sale thereof does not fall within the prohibition. State v. Laffer, 38 Iowa 422; State v. Gregory, 110 Iowa 624, 82 N.W. 335; Berner v. McHenry, 169 Iowa 483, 151 N.W. 450.

It cannot be seriously urged that the mere presence of alcohol in a manufactured product, irrespective of medication and...