Jasper County Democrat, Volume 11, Number 23, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 18 July 1908 — HITS “TONICA.” [ARTICLE]

HITS “TONICA.”

Court Holds Vendors Must Have License. IS A MALT LIQUOR, SAY EXPERTS. Fine of *SO Imposed on a Frankfort Dealer—Decision Is erf General Interest—Appeal Taken. Frankfort, Ind., July 15.—Special Judge William R. Moore, appointed by Mayor Paul to try the case of the State against Bert Johns, of Colfax, charged with the illegal sale of liquor, it being alleged that “tonica,” a drink manufactured by the Indianapolis Brewing Company, and sold by him, was a malt liquor, handed down his finding to-day. The decision of the court is one of general Interest in the state inasmuch as “tonica” is sold in nearly every temperance town in Indiana, and other breweries manufacture similar drinks under various names. In his finding Judge Moore holds that “tonica” is a malt beverage, and that in selling it without license Bert Johnß violated the law. He imposed a fine of SSO and costs. Back of the_ prosecution of Ml Johns is the active work of the temperance people of Colfax, following the closing of the saloons in that town after a strenuous fight which was led by F. M Goldsberry, who stated in the outset that his only object in ridding the town of the saloons was to save his son, a bright young man, addicted to the drink habit. After the baloons were closed “tonica” was sold*in the poolrooms and other places where soft drinks wer# disposed of.

The affidavit against Johns was filed by the superintendent of the Methodist Sunday school, Johns being a member of the same church. A bottle of the “Tonica” was sent to Purdue University to be analyzed, and, upon the refusal of the professors there to analyze it, Marshal Conaroe, who had bought it from Johns brought it to this city and turned it over to Chief of Police G. W. Bird. It was later sent to Indianapolis, where it was analyzed, and the expert at the hearing of the case testified that it contained malt. The court held that if it was established that "Tonica” was a malt liquor, it must be held to come under the license law, even though it was not shown that it was intoxicating. Because it was established that “Tonica” was a malted liquor, the jugde held that it was his duty to find that the statute, prohibiting the sale of malted liquors by any one not holding a license to sell intoxicating liquor, had been violated. The court reviewed the testimony of Dr. Bishop, who testified the "Toxica” contained .63 of 1 per cent, of alcohol, he having analyzed the bottle sent to him by Chief Bird. The court ruled that the statutes of the State held that malt liquor was intoxicating, and he further held that It was not necessary that, the State show that /“Tonica” was intoxicating.

The Indianapolis Brewing Company, seeing the importance of the case on trial here, sent Its attorneys and they assisted In the defense of the case, the assertion being made that “Tonica” was not an intoxicant and that in its sale there was no violation of the law. In this city there are some five of six places wheye “Tonica” is sold, It being placed on sale immediately after the closing of a number of the saloons here and by the persons that were compelled to close their saloons when the blanket remonstrance, for the city was held good in the Circuit Court. In the smaller towns in the county “Tonica” is sold; but the officers say that they will at once take steps to see that Its sale here 1b stopped. The case will be appealed to the higher court by the liquor interests.