United States v. Ash

• Decision Date: 20 April 1896
• Docket Number: 532.
• Citation: 75 F. 651
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. ASH.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Alaska

75 F. 651

UNITED STATES v. ASH.

No. 532.

United States District Court, District of Alaska.

April 20, 1896

Burton E. Bennett, U.S. Atty.

J. F Maloney and Johnson & Heid, for defendant.

DELANEY District Judge (orally).

When congress provided the act establishing a civil government for this district, known as the 'Organic Act,' and which became a law on the 17th day of May, 1884, the following provision was incorporated into said act, to wit 'The importation, manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors in said district, except for medicinal, mechanical and scientific purposes, is hereby prohibited. ' This is the law commonly known in this district as the 'Prohibitory Liquor Law,' and is the act under which the indictment in this case is brought. The indictment charges the defendant with having violated this provision of law on or about the 4th day of the present month by selling an intoxicating liquor commonly called 'whisky.' There is no contention that any liquor was sold for medicinal mechanical, or scientific purposes; consequently, if a sale was made, it was in violation of this statute. In order to warrant a conviction of this defendant, three material facts must be established in your minds from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt: First, the liquor was sold; second, that the liquor was intoxicating; third, that the sale was made by this defendant either in person or through his agents, servants, or employes, acting for him, or under his direction, management, or control. A sale is the transfer of any piece of property or thing of value from one person to another person for a valuable consideration; i.e. for current money of the United States. The word 'sale,' as used in this prohibitory statute, means such a sale as I have thus defined, and the fact that such sale took place must be established to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence in the case.

Aside from finding that there has been such a sale, to warrant the conviction of the defendant, it is also necessary that the intoxicating nature of the liquor sold should be established. Upon this question there is an extraordinary diversity of information among the judges of the courts in this country. In one of the earliest decisions upon this question in the state of New York, wherein the opinion of the court was delivered by Chancellor Walworth, one of the most learned and eminent judges this country has produced, the court, in a most exhaustive opinion, declared its judicial knowledge as to what was an intoxicating drink in that state, and also went into further details concerning intoxicating liquors in other countries of the globe, and in the remotest times. In later years there seems to have been a disposition to deny or ignore judicial knowledge as to what constitutes intoxicating liquors, and the courts have manifested a desire to disavow any judicial knowledge on the subject. At the same time some of the courts have not hesitated to impute to juries an extensive knowledge and information in this...