Coppedge v. M. K. Goetz Brewing Co.

Per Curiam;

After the issues were made up in this case, it was tried on an agreed statement, from which it appears that the plaintiff, a non-resident corporation, was the *852owner of certain bars, mirrors, etc., paraphernalia ordinarily and generally used in maintaining a public nuisance unr^the prohibition law; that the property, at the time of its destruction, was of the value of $350; that it was leased to one C. T. Conner, to be used by him in the town of Norcatur, Decatur county, in maintaining a place where intoxicating liquors were sold contrary to law. As a consideration for the use of…