Boldt v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeals from Franklin Circuit Court, Charleston District. Jephtha EL Hvans, Judge. Sec. 4877, Sand. & H. Dig., does not render unlawful the sale of pure grape wine made of grapes grown by ■the person who sells it, within the three mile limit. Sand. & H. Dig., secs. 4852-3-4-5. This was the act of April 3,1889, which was construed in 53 Ark. 490. See, also, 37 id. 361. Mansf. Dig., sec. 4524, contains a proviso excepting these native wines from the operation of the act.
Read the full summary
Appeals from Franklin Circuit Court, Charleston District. Jephtha EL Hvans, Judge. Sec. 4877, Sand. & H. Dig., does not render unlawful the sale of pure grape wine made of grapes grown by ■the person who sells it, within the three mile limit. Sand. & H. Dig., secs. 4852-3-4-5. This was the act of April 3,1889, which was construed in 53 Ark. 490. See, also, 37 id. 361. Mansf. Dig., sec. 4524, contains a proviso excepting these native wines from the operation of the act. After this the legislature passed the “Wine Act” of April 3, 1889, which was construed in 53 Ark. •490, the effect of which…
1Opinion of the CourtHughes, J.
These cases are practically one, and :are so abstracted and briefed. Appellants were separately indicted and convicted for selling vinous liquor in a local “option district.” The evidence was that the wine sold was the pure juice of the grape, grown by appellants and made and sold by them at their homes in three miles of Pleasant View School-house, while an order of the county court was in force prohibiting the sale, within that limit, of spirituous, fermented, vinous, malt and intoxicating liquors. The wine sold was a gallon — in a sealed jug — and was not adulterated, but pure grape juice.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. DeschampSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1890
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ex parte DeedsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
- Hubman v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896