Mackie v. Erhardt

(orally.) The phrase “alcoholic compounds,” in its ordinary signification, is sufficiently comprehensive to include these articles. I have not heard, in the case presented here, sufficient, in my judgment, to warrant the conclusion that it is used by congress in any other than its ordinary signification. It may be that these articles are otherwise speciaUy enumerated and provided for in the act, but there is no specific testimony to that effect, nor does the protest so claim. It simply claims that they are nonenumerated articles. It stands or falls by the phraseology of paragraph 103. I think the articles are alcoholic compounds, within the meaning of that paragraph, and shall direct a verdict for the defendant.