State v. McIntosh

Decision Date31 December 1903
Citation57 A. 83,98 Me. 397
PartiesSTATE v. McINTOSH.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

(Official.)

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Androscoggin County.

Irving L. Mcintosh was convicted of keeping a liquor nuisance, and brings exceptions. Exceptions sustained.

This was an indictment under Rev. St. 1883, c. 17, § 1, wherein the defendant was charged with keeping and maintaining a liquor nuisance in the town of Lisbon between October 1, 1902, and the date of the indictment. The intoxicating liquors in question consisted of six dozen bottles of Jamaica ginger found on the defendant's premises. The defendant, during the time covered by the indictment, was the proprietor of a store in the village of Lisbon Falls, connected with which was a billiard and pool room. His stock of goods consisted of tobacco, cigars, confectionery, fruit, nuts, soda beers, canned goods, patent medicines of various kinds, and three brands of Jamaica ginger, viz., Sariford's, Gilt Edge, and Anchor Mills, the last named being the particular brand seized by the officers, and carried in materially larger quantities than the others.

The analysis of this brand was found to be as follows: Total solids, 11.70 per cent.; resin, .02 per cent.; fixed oil, trace; volatile oil, .066 per cent; residue, caramel and sugar extractive; alcohol, 44.90 per cent.; water sufficient to make 100 per cent.

The evidence tended to show that the compound contained the full medicinal strength of the ginger.

There was evidence tending to show that this brand of Jamaica ginger contained only a trace of resin, while the brands generally sold and used for medicinal purposes contained a considerable proportion of resin, which made it practically impossible to use them as a beverage, the resin being the irritant which exists in the usual brands. The evidence of the defense, however, tended to show that all of the various brands on the market could be used as a beverage.

The evidence further tended to show that Jamaica ginger is a common article of commerce, and is sold by nearly all druggists and grocers as a medicine, it being a common household remedy; that the standard test Jamaica ginger, as provided by the United States pharmacopoeia formula, contains 94 per cent of alcohol, and that the brands and qualities ordinarily sold by druggists and grocers contain from 40 per cent to GO per cent of alcohol.

There was evidence tending to show that this compound was kept and sold by the defendant but there was no direct evidence that it was sold or kept to be sold as a beverage, the defendant claiming that what was sold was sold in the ordinary course of business as a medicine. There was evidence, however, tending to show that empty bottles, in considerable numbers, similar in shape and in markings to those containing the Jamaica ginger seized by the officers, were found some rods from the defendant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • W. D. Reeves Lumber Company v. Davis
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 22 Mayo 1916
    ...The instructions refused were based upon this theory, and the court erred in excluding the testimony on this subject. 50 Ill. 332; 57 A. 83; 9 Cyc. 356; 35 S.W. 272; 42 N.E. 251; Id. 423. Plaintiffs could not sue for one-half the profits. 93 Ark. 447. Bevens & Mundt, for appellee. 1. The de......
  • State v. Soucy
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 20 Noviembre 1925
    ...bottles of home brewed beer, and 90 empty bottles, were found. This evidence does not "necessarily and as a matter of law" (State v. Mcintosh, 98 Me. 400, 57 A. 83) prove that the respondent kept and maintained a common nuisance, but it justified the jury in so finding. State v. Stanley, 84......
  • State v. Kapicsky
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • 10 Febrero 1909
    ...used as places of resort where such liquors are "given away, drunk or dispensed in any manner not provided for by law." State v. McIntosh, 98 Me. 397, 57 Atl. 83; State v. Stanley, 84 Me. 555, 24 Atl. But it is not incumbent upon the state to show that the place was used for such unlawful p......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT