Chariton was officially "dry" during the spring of 1903 --- meaning that it was against the law to sell intoxicating beverages at any place other than a pharmacy and then only to those armed with prescriptions. The city fathers some years earlier had embraced the popular theory that if mankind's age-old affection for strong drink could be overcome, utopia would be nearer.
Prohibition had been imposed statewide in Iowa by the Legislature during 1884, but that law had been modified 10 years later to allow local options. Chariton, however, had stuck with the earlier, stricter ordinances.
This meant that local law enforcement spent a good deal of time rooting out those who resisted and bringing them to trial, but only rarely did the beverage itself end up in court as it did during during April and May of 1903 when three barrels of Malt Mead went on trial. The question was, "is the beverage they contain intoxicating?" Court officers, jurors and law enforcement sampled the product and concluded that it probably was, but lacked proof. It took several weeks and analysis by a Simpson College chemist before justice finally was done --- and what remained in the barrels by that time was poured out onto the street.
An account of Malt Mead's first trial was published in The Chariton Herald of April 23 as follows:
WILL KEEP ON SELLING
Liquor Won the Day in the Courter Trial before Squire Long Monday
The three barrels of liquor, said to be intoxicating, which were seized in Lloyd Courter's restaurant last week, were put on trial before Squire Long last Monday afternoon, on a change of venue from Squire Manning's court. Courter claimed that the liquor was not intoxicating. It was called Malt Mead, and was a bottled liquid resembling beer, and tasting, it is said, like a cheap imitation of beer. County Attorney Drake conducted the prosecution and Attorney Campbell the defense. A jury of Roy Meadows, Chas. Vance, Simon Press, J.D. Henderson and Robert Manning was impaneled.
The point on which the defense claimed a decision was that the liquor was not intoxicating, and although it was generally believed that it was intoxicating, the prosecution failed to introduce evidence to prove that it was, and the jury decided in favor of the defendant. So Mr. Courter will get back his three barrels of fluid, excepting what had been consumed in testing by members of the court --- and will continue to sell it as a beverage.
Of course if the liquid is not intoxicating, it will have a very slow sale, for the fellows who are looking for a beverage at this time of year want something stronger than the jury decided Malt Mead to be. But on the other hand, if the liquid is intoxicating, a very serious harm has been done, as similar liquids can be sold openly by any restaurant or private individual in town without fear of interference by law. The case was an important one to the community, and it is unfortunate that there is any doubt left to as to whether the stuff is intoxicating or not. Most of the jurymen are of the opinion that it is intoxicating, but they were sworn to decide according to the evidence, and there was no evidence to prove otherwise than they decided.
+++
Malt Mead was back in the news a week later after it was announced that proof of its intoxicating nature had been obtained and that a new trial would be scheduled. In addition, Tom Anderson's house had been raided and more liquor impounded, so two court cases now were pending. Here's the report from The Herald of April 30:
Malt Mead Again
The case against the sale of Malt Mead, which was decided in Justice Long's court last week in favor of the defendant, Lloyd Courter, is again on deck, Proof has been secured, it is said, that the beverage is intoxicating, and on Monday evening the officers seized all that was left of the three barrels which they returned to Mr. Courter after the first trial. It is said that it was selling splendidly, in spite of the fact that it was said to not be be intoxicating. The second trial will be held next Tuesday.
The officers also seized a barrel of beer and three bottles of whiskey at the home of Tom Anderson in southwest Chariton. He will be tried next week also, on the charge of illegal selling.
+++
The Malt Mead trial was postponed for reasons that were not explained, but Anderson's trial proceeded --- and left local law enforcement licking its wounds. Here's The Herald report from May 14:
Liquor Case Lost
The State vs. T.T. Anderson, the liquor trial held before Squire Manning last Thursday afternoon, was lost by the state, and the liquor was ordered returned to Mr. Anderson. The point at law was as to whether the defendant was guilty of selling liquor contrary to law or not. The officers had found and seized a barrel of beer and several bottles of whiskey in his house, but he brought witnesses to testify that the beer was for his own use and the whiskey belonged to a friend. The trial was before a jury of five men, selected as follows from a list proposed by Constable Waynick --- Willis Lake, James Robbins, William Clark, J.T. Griffin and D.P. Luce.
+++
The Malt Mead case finally came before Justice Manning during the week following, but the outcome was anticlimactic, as reported in The Herald of May 21:
Malt Mead Trial Won
The trial before Justice Manning last Monday, in which it was to be determined whether or not the Malt Mead sold by Lloyd Courter was intoxicating, resulted in a victory for the prosecution. Prof. Goodwin, the chemist at Simpson College, had analyzed the liquor and found it to contain five percent of alcohol, more than enough to make it intoxicating. This fact became known to the defense, and Atty. Campbell appeared at the trial only long enough to announce that his client would not appear. So the jury, composed of Jas. Marsh, Newt Funk, Harvey Ketcham and James Stroud --- selected by Deputy Sheriff Pulliam --- did not get a chance to serve. The officers interested in the case are to be congratulated on their victory. The liquor will be destroyed.
+++
And so, for a few brief shining hours, demon rum was in retreat and all was well in Chariton --- unless you were one of those unfortunate sinners with a thirst.
No comments:
Post a Comment