| OCR Text |
Show UTAH DRY WW IS WITHOUT ANY FLAW. lIKllll'lt COt'ltT (11 Vl Ut'I.lNO THAT IS IIIMHNM. i l.liiior Held Since I bo l'lil of AtigtiM Iji'I, Nii Matter How and Where. lUiughl, Is t'onflicnblo Unanimous IKxislon Come Fmm the Hupirnic Itcncli In CVIebnitetl Ogilrn Cai'. Lliiuor held by iiny pirsou In Utah since August 1, 1017, no matter when purchased or for what purpose l bought. Is sclinblo by tho stain a I contraband, according to n decision Just handed down by the state su-i su-i premii court In the case of Otto Moek it Ogdeti. In this decision the provisions pro-visions of the prohibition law nre ful-.1) ful-.1) upheld. This proceeding was begun be-gun on the complaint of the state, 1 flltd In the municipal court or Ogdeti '(It), ngalnst certain Intoxicating II-'iliior II-'iliior seitid by pence officers nil Aug-I Aug-I ut IX, 1917, under thu prohibition ' Inw The municipal inurt, under the pro- visions of the act, commanded nnd ulrcited the Honor to he kept nnd held b) the officer until otherwise disHHHd of according to law. An np-, np-, pral was taken to the district court for Weber county, where the def end-nut end-nut Meek, appeared, mado claim to the Ihiuor as the owner, was made a part) to tho action und moved to iqunsh thn order made by the muntel-.pal muntel-.pal court nnd to dismiss thr action, ' Jurisdiction I Challenge!). Itlroiind ullrgrd for Justification of the motion were that the municipal mini had no Jurisdiction to hoar, try or determine the title to tho liquor nnd that thn Honor were wrongfully anil unlaw fully seised and held. It wa stipulated that the liquor hud hi en purchased by Meek mid delivered deliver-ed to him at the premise of a firm there prior to August 1, 1I7. The liquor wa mdied by the officer on August IN, It 17, eighteen ilny after the Utah prohibition Inw became f-rectlve. f-rectlve. Another stipulation, In order In Iry the case In Its Important phase, was that the liquor Were purchased by Meek prior to the date when thn prohibition pro-hibition law became effective, that they hud been purchased, kept nnd held In good faith without nuy Intent to dlnpoic of them by sale or otherwise other-wise In violation or tho law, und sole-I) sole-I) for the pvrsinul use of Meek, when they were celled by the officers. t'ninn Up On Appeal. I'pou tho fncut us stipulated tho district court for Weber county mi-, drred Judgment dismissing tho action i and ordered that the officers having tho liquor In custody nstnro them to Meek From this Judgment nnd order or-der the stnto appciilcd. Justice I'.. K, Corf mull, who write the decision, concurrence III which Is unanimous, Kay that tho district court erred In dei luring the liquor not confiscable hecuuso purchased before thn prohibition prohi-bition law went Into effect. The supreme su-preme court decision declare tho liquor li-quor confiscate to the state and orders the trial court to outer Judgment lie-cordingl). |
