People v. Rosseau

CRAIG, J.

The appellant in this case was found guilty upon an information charging that he unlawfully sold whisky containing more than one-half of one per centum of alcohol. A motion for a new trial thereafter interposed in his behalf was denied, and he appeals from the judgment and from the order denying said motion.

It is insisted that the evidence adduced by the People entirely failed to show that the substance sold contained more than the legal content of alcohol, or that it was fit for beverage purposes. Four men drove to the defendant’s house, one of whom asked him for a pint of whisky,

[247]

for which he demanded two dollars in advance, and was so paid. He disappeared for three or four minutes, delivered to the purchaser a package containing a bottle the contents of which three of them testified was “moonshine whisky,” and was immediately arrested. The arresting officer testified that for a number of years he had known what liquor was, that prior to entering upon his official duties he had tasted liquor of all brands and was familiar therewith, and that during the last nine preceding months he had been required to taste samples of liquor. The second witness swore that the defendant at first did not want to sell them whisky, but when reminded that they had been there before, he filled their order. This witness testified that from his experience with liquor since he was a boy in Tennessee, and from sampling it and having the same analyzed by a chemist, he knew the various kinds, and knew the contents of the bottle in question to be whisky. The third witness related the circumstances of the arrest, testifying that he knew the taste of whisky, and that the contents of said bottle was intoxicating liquor. All of the evidence offered by the defendant was to the effect that he had no liquor, that he sold none to the officers, and that he did not deliver any package to them. No evidence was offered which tended to show that the bottle, if it was so sold, contained poison or was sold or intended for medicinal purposes. Two of the witnesses testified that it contained whisky, and another that its contents were intoxicating liquor. Witnesses similarly qualified have heretofore testified as to the quality and character of liquors, and such evidence has been upheld as sufficient to support the judgments of convictions.