Walker v. Prescott

Decided July 1, 1860

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1860-07-01

<p>Ale is not spirituous liquor within the meaning of chapter 846 of the laws of this State.</p> <p>A liquor sold as ale may he so mixed with spirituous liquor as to fall within the prohibition of that statue, forbidding the sale of “ any wine or spirituous liquor, mixed or unmixed,” &e.</p>

Relies on People v. Crilley · State v. Moore · State v. Wall

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1860-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1900

4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bartlett, J.

¶1Ale, being produced by fermentation and not by distillation, is not “ spirituous liquor ” within the meaning of *512chapter 846 of the Pamphlet Laws of this State. People v. Crilley, 20 Barb. 248; State v. Moore, 5 Blackf. 118; Nevin v. Ladue, 3 Denio 437; Commonwealth v. Markoe, 17 Pick. 465; Commonwealth v. Jordan, 18 Pick. 228; Commonwealth v. Thayer, 5 Met. 246. But what is sold as ale may be so mixed with spirituous liquor as to fall within the meaning of that statue which prohibited the sale of “ any wine or spirituous liquor, mixed or unmixed,” &c.; and where that is the fact it may be shown by evidence. Commonwealth v. Bathnick, 6 Cush. 247; Commonwealth v. White, 10 Met. 14; State v. Wall, 34 Me. 165.

¶2The case is to he discharged.