Rensselaer Democrat, Volume 1, Number 1, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 15 April 1898 — WHAT JUDGE THOMPSON THINKS. [ARTICLE]

WHAT JUDGE THOMPSON THINKS.

The following are th§ principal points of Judge Thompson’s decision in over-ruling the motion for anew trial, with W. B. Austin’s champagne case, of recent notoriety. The evidence showed that on Jan. Ist, 1898 the defendant had in his law office 1 dozen quart bottles of champagne, an intoxicating liquor. On his invitation 12 neighbors and friends came to his office for a New Years call. The doors were closed to persons not invited. The defendant gave to his visitors such quantities of the champagne as they chose to drink. Chas. Warner, the prosecuting witness, drank three or more glasses. None of those receiving the champagne paid or offered to pay for it. The parties were attracted to the office by the defendant's invitation, by the presence of the champagne, and by its being New Year’s day. The defendant's attorneys discussed the law without limit, the judge's instructions were conservative. and the jury's verdict not vindictive.

The indictment is based on section 2098. R. S. 1881.***. So far as the Legislature is concerned it is a crime to give, sell or barter intoxicants, to be drank as a beverage. on any Sunday, the 4th of July, the 25th of December. Jan. let. Thanksgiving day, election days, legal holidays, and on any day of the year between 11 p. m, and sa. m. Those days and hours nr: alike sacred from the traffic in intoxicant ■ either in the form of a -•ale, barter or gift. The C.mrt may presume that the Legislature deemed it wise to protect It ’ citizens in six hours of quiet sleep each day, a day of rest each week-a devotion to patriotism on the 4th day of July, election and Thanksgiving days, the birth--day of the Savior and at tin' beginning of each year meditate on the past and turn over a new leaf, forming good r esolutions of personal reform bespeaking the coming as a better year of each life. There is no law against dwelling in the love of God and of man. on New Year’s day. nor keeping our dwellings as “open as day and the hearts of the owners. “ It is our duty on New Year's day however to keep the intoxicant - corked up and tarry not at the wine. The defendant claimed that prohibition at specified days and hours eneoached on the private rights of citizens. The Supreme Court in Hedcucli vs State. 101 Ind., 5(V4. decides that the legislature has the power to prohibit the liquor traffic in any form, on holidays. The defendant claims that the act applies only to persons whose business is selling liquor for profit. and does not apply to acts of hospitality: “This act is the part of the general criminal law, and is as general as the crime of assault find battery.

It is pretty clear to the mind of the Court that if the young men on last New Year’s day resorted to defendant’s office simply to attend an opening of champagne that they were not his guests. See 140 Mass, pages 244 and 298. That matter was not presented in the Court's instructions and for the purpose of this motion it may be even assumed that they happened in the office and that the champagne was a New Year's gift in the usual meaning of what is termed hospitality. This court holds it to be the law the lawyer cannot treat those who come to his office on the first day of January as “New Year’s callers” to intoxicating liquors without violating the provisions and making himself liable to the penalty of said section 2099. Personally, the Judge would be glad if the law directed him to grant this motion,

The general criminal statutes however are in force against all persons and in all places alike and the defendant’s motion must be denied. »'