State v. Intoxicating Liquors

• Decision Date: 20 December 1888
• Citation: 41 N.W. 6,76 Iowa 243
• Parties: STATE v. INTOXICATING LIQUORS, (CUMMINGS, CLAIMANT.)
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

76 Iowa 243

41 N.W. 6

STATE

v.INTOXICATING LIQUORS, (CUMMINGS, CLAIMANT.)

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 20, 1888.

Appeal from district court, Buchanan county; J. J. NEY, Judge.

Certain liquors claimed to be intoxicating were duly seized under legal process. P. C. Cummings appeared and claimed to be the owner of such liquor. A trial was had before a justice of the peace, who found the liquors were not intoxicating, and ordered that they be returned to the claimant. An appeal to the district court was taken, and judgment was rendered for the defendant. The state appeals.H. W. Holman, for appellant.

SEEVERS, C. J., ( after stating the facts as above.)

It is contended that the court erred in finding the liquors were not intoxicating. The case was submitted to the court upon the evidence of a single witness as to whether the liquors were intoxicating. Such evidence is before us. The witness is a chemist, and made an analysis of the liquor, and he testifies that one portion thereof contained “2.42 per cent. of alcohol by weight, and 3.02 per cent. by volume; and the other portion contained 2.58 per cent. by weight, and 3.22 per cent. by volume.” The witness, in response to questions asked him, testified as follows: “Now what do you say to this * * * being an intoxicating liquor?” “I do not think it would intoxicate the average drinker.” “Well, what do you say in regard to people who are not in the habit of using it?” “I think it would intoxicate the larger portion.” “What per cent.--how many out of a hundred -- would become intoxicated on these goods that contain two and one-half per cent. of alcohol?” “I think a fair proportion of them would.” “Of men generally?” “Yes, sir; if they would take a fairly large quantity.” “What do you say as to the two and one-half per cent. beverages producing the second effect of intoxication on the ordinary man?” “I think it would produce that effect.” “On all who use it?” “Nearly all.” The court must have found, under the foregoing evidence, that the liquors were not intoxicating. This finding has the force and effect of a verdict of a jury, and cannot be disturbed if more than one conclusion can be fairly drawn from the evidence. Conceding the competency of the evidence as to the intoxicating character of the liquor, if the question to be determined rested alone on such evidence, we are disposed to think, under the settled rule prevailing in this court, it would be doubtful whether we could disturb such...