State v. Monsees
| Decision Date | 01 March 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 15534.,15534. |
| Citation | 281 S.W. 62 |
| Parties | STATE v. MONSEES. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pettis County; Dimmitt Hoffman, Judge.
"Not to be officially reported."
Martin Monsees was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.
R. A. Higdon and George P. Boothe, both of Sedalia, for appellant.
Roy W. Rucker, of Sedalia, for the State.
Defendant was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $500 and six months' imprisonment in the county jail. He appeals.
The facts show that defendant was the owner of a farm in Pettis county, and conducted a place of business in the city of Sedalia, where he sold various kinds of cider and produce from his farm. On April 8 1924, the sheriff of Pettis county, in company with two witnesses, visited defendant's place of business, and there obtained from him a sample of a beverage that he was selling. The sample was forwarded to the Kansas City Testing Laboratories, and on the 18th day of April, 1924, after a chemical analysis was made, it was found that the beverage contained 20.7 per cent. of alcohol by volume. The sample was produced at the trial. The sheriff testified that he had had some experience in detecting intoxicating liquor, and from the odor of the sample at the trial it was in his opinion such a liquor, to wit, whisky. He testified that he had been in defendant's place of business about a dozen times, but that this was the first time that he had found whisky there; that they found 40 to 45 barrels and kegs of liquid in defendant's basement, which were emptied into the sewer. This contained different kinds of "wine, ciders, and different kinds of drinks." There were He found a quantity of corn mash in the cellar. He tested the liquid found in the basement with a hydrometer but did not find that it contained any alcohol by this test. He testified that defendant had a drink he called corn cider, but the witness did not know whether this was Intoxicating.
The city marshal testified that the sample at the trial smelled like whisky. The deputy sheriff testified that "the boys called" defendant's place of business "a cider joint." He testified that he accompanied the sheriff to defendant's cellar, and that the liquid found therein smelled "a little bit" like vinegar; that there was quite a bit of corn mash in the cellar. The witness Hawthorne, testifying for the state, stated that he was chief chemist for the Kansas City Testing Laboratories, and that he tested the sample on April 18, 1924. He found that the specific gravity of the sample at 60 degrees Fahrenheit was 1.005. The total solids dissolved in the liquid was 9.33 per cent. That the ash, which is that part of the solids which is noncombustible, and remains after combustion, was .39 per cent., and that it contained 20.8 per cent. ethyl alcohol by volume.
He further testified that alcohol is formed by fermentation; that the rapidity of the fermentation depends entirely on the fermenting medium and the concentration of the sugars and starch, and proceeds best when the temperature is about 98° Fahrenheit. Asked how long it would take mash to ferment so as to contain 10 per cent. alcohol he testified That mash ordinarily begins to ferment in about 24 hours, but, if the alcohol-forming are present, they begin to work right away, and convert the sugar and starch into alcohol. He further testified that one cannot tell the alcoholic contents of a fermented liquid by a hydrometer. A hydrometer is an instrument for measuring specific gravity. Substances dissolved in the liquid, such as sugar and starch, would cause a false reading if the hydrometer is put into a fermenting liquid.
Defendant testified that he was selling "apple cider, corn cider, grape cider — several kinds of cider"; that he made the various kinds of cider by the use of fruit extracts, which he mixed with it, frequently after they had been mixed with syrups; that he the various kinds of flavors by a combination or blending of the different extracts; that his corn cider was cider mixed with cornmeal or corn mash; that he treated his cider with salicylic acid, or benzoate of soda, or sulphate of lime, for the purpose of preventing it from getting hard; that the in his cellar contained vinegar and sweet eider; that he had never sold anything intoxicating. Among the various kinds of drinks he sold were those of very suggestive names,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Holloway
...close of all the evidence, and there was substantial evidence to support the verdict. State v. Lebo, 339 Mo. 960, 98 S.W.2d 695; State v. Monsees, 281 S.W. 62. (6) trial court did not err in denying new trial under appellant's Assignment No. VIII of his motion for new trial. Sec. 4051, R.S.......
-
State v. Smith
...Allen, 342 Mo. 1043, 119 S.W.2d 304; State v. Harris, 324 Mo. 223, 22 S.W.2d 802; State v. Gadwood, 342 Mo. 466, 116 S.W.2d 42; State v. Monsees, 281 S.W. 62. (2) verdict was not the result of prejudice and passion on the part of the jury against the defendant. State v. Raines, 333 Mo. 538,......
-
State v. Arnett
...the limitation period is not error. State v. Evans, Mo.App., 83 S.W.2d 218; State v. Dowell, 331 Mo. 1060, 55 S.W.2d 975; State v. Monsees, Mo.App., 281 S.W. 62; see State v. Hartman, supra, Mo.App., 259 S.W. 513. Nor is appellant in position to complain because the instruction submitted a ......
-
State v. Goodman
...455; State v. Egan Mo.App., 272 S.W.2d 719; State v. Levan, Mo.App., 136 S.W.2d 1010; State v. Brown, Mo.App., 293 S.W. 87; State v. Monsees, Mo.App., 281 S.W. 62; State v. Hull, Mo.App., 279 S.W. 221; State v. Kiely, Mo.App., 255 S.W. 343; State v. Magruder, Mo.App., 219 S.W. 701; State v.......