Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 19, Number 62, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 12 April 1898 — Judge Thompson’s Opinion. [ARTICLE]

Judge Thompson’s Opinion.

The following is an abstract of the principal points in Judge Thompson’s decision, in over-rul-ing the motion for a new trial in the W. B. Austin case. 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 throe 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 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 drunk is a beverage, on any Sunday, the 4th of July, the 25111 of December, Jan. Ist, ■ Thanksgiving dav, election days, legal holidays, and on any day of the year between 11 p. m, and sa. m. Those days and hours are alike sacred from the traffic in intoxicants either in the form of a sale, barter or gift. The Court may presume that the Legislature deemed it wise to protect its 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 birthday of the Savior and at the beginning of each year meditate on the past and turn over a new leaf, forminggood resolutions 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 Years day, nor keeping our dwellings as “open as day and the hearts of the owners.” It is our duty on New Years day however to keep the intoxicants corked up and tarry not at. the wino. Tho defendant claimed that prohibition at specified days and hours encoached on the private rights of citizens. The Supreme Court in Hedench vs State, 101 Ind., 564, decides that the legislature has the power to prohibit the liquor tariff in any form, on holidays. Tho defendant claims that tlie act applies only to persons whose business is selling liquor for profit, and doos 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 and battery. -x- * * * * It is pretty clear to tho mind of the Court that if the young men on last New Year’s day resorted to defendants office simply to attend an opening of champagne that they wore not his guests. See 1 ! ' Mass, pages 244 and 298. That matter was not presented in the Court’s instructions and lor the purpose of this motion it may be oven assumed that they happened in the office and that the champagne was'a News Years gift in the usual meaning of what is 1 termed hospitality. This court holds it io be the law that lawyer cannot treat those who come to his office on the first day of .January as “New \ ears callers to intoxicating liquors without 1 violating the provisions and mak-

ing 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 plhces alike and the defendant’s motion must be denied.