State v. Andrews

• Decision Date: 10 March 1920
• Docket Number: No. 33072.,33072.
• Citation: 188 Iowa 626,176 N.W. 637
• Parties: STATE v. ANDREWS ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

188 Iowa 626

176 N.W. 637

STATE

v.ANDREWS ET AL.

No. 33072.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 10, 1920.

Appeal from District Court, Palo Alto County; D. F. Coyle, Judge.

After a full trial on the merits, Andrews, the drug company, and the owner of the premises, were enjoined from maintaining a liquor nuisance. They appeal. Affirmed.Cook & Balluff, of Davenport, and McCarty & McCarty, of Emmetsburg, for appellants.

H. M. Havner, Atty. Gen., B. J. Powers, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John Menzies, Co. Atty., of Emmetsburg, for the State.

PRESTON, J.

The defendants, other than the owner, had been conducting a drug business in the premises described, for about two years. They had in stock various proprietary medicines, and drugs, among which was a preparation known as Harlax, or Harlax Stomach and Liver Regulator, which was a preparation manufactured by a wholesale drug company in Rock Island, Ill. The company formerly manufactured a preparation known as Black Hawk Stomach Bitters, but it was changed to Harlax. It is the same preparation, and made according to the same formula. They simply changed the name. The per cent. of alcohol was reduced a little, from about 28 per cent. to from 23 to 25 per cent. by volume, in Harlax. In addition to the 23 per cent. alcohol, it contains a small per cent. of sugar, and other solids, and a certain per cent. of cascara. There is evidence to show that Harlax was purchased by a number of witnesses for use as an intoxicating beverage, and that they did so use it and became intoxicated. The three parties so having purchased and used it are shown to have been drunkards. One of them drank a bottle containing something more than a pint in 20 hours. Defendants introduced several witnesses who testified that they purchased the preparation for medical purposes. Defendants contend that Harlax, while containing 23 per cent. alcohol, was sufficiently medicated to make it undesirable for use as a beverage, and that it was in fact a medicine. Witnesses for the state testify as to the reputation of the place, and that it had the reputation of being a place where a large amount of this so-called stomach bitters was sold, and where people could buy intoxicants of some kind that would make men drunk. The reputation was with reference to the stomach bitters and the sale thereof to drunkards. There is no claim that other intoxicating liquors were sold. Defendant had a government license to sell intoxicating liquors at retail. Defendant explains this by saying that he keeps it for his protection, because he keeps many different kinds of patent medicines that contain a high percentage of alcohol, and when a government man comes to the store he inquires for the stamp, and, if there is none, the government man looks over the stock. Defendant...