72 Iowa 421 | Iowa | 1887
At the time of the acts complained of, the defendant held a permit from the board of supervisors of Montgomery county to sell intoxicating liquors for medicinal, mechanical, culinary and sacramental purposes. The evidence tended to show that while holding such permit he sold beer by the keg, to be used by the purchaser in mixing the same with other ingredients in the manufacture of a beverage called “ I. M. Soda-Water.” The evidence did not show that the beverage thus manufactured was intoxicating. But the court instructed the jury that if they should find that the defendant sold beer for the purpose of making a drink known as “ I. M. Soda-Water,” to be used as a beverage, this would be a violation of the permit, and the same would furnish the defendant no protection. The defendant contends that such is not the law. His position is that the design of the statute is not to suppress the use of a beverage composed in part of an intoxicating liquor, if the beverage itself is not intoxicating. But, in our opinion, this position cannot be sustained. The statute is not designed merely to prevent intoxication,
Some evidence was introduced respecting sales which it is claimed were not sales in violation of law. The defendant contends that the jury should have been specifically instructed in regard to this evidence. But it appears to have been introduced without objection, and no instructions were asked in regard to it. On the other hand, the instructions given appear to us to be a correct expression of the law.
We think that the defendant had a fair trial, and that the judgment of the district court must be
Ahbtbmkd.