Sunquist

Plaintiff in error, called defendant, was convicted of maintaining a common nuisance and keeping intoxicating liquor for sale at premises described, and of unlawful possession of “jackass” brandy.

There was ample evidence inculpating defendant. It was to the effect that the premises described were fitted up with a bar, chairs, and such equipment as was usual in a saloon; that several prohibition agents saw the bartender serving drinks in small glasses; that the agents saw men in front of the bar, and after entering and announcing themselves as federal officers, saw defendant back of the bar; that there was a scuffle between one of the prohibition agents and a man at the end of . the bar; that defendant, who was then behind the bar, dumped a quantity of liquid into a container; that upon analysis the liquid was found to be jackass brandy, which contained 14.2 per cent, alcohol by volume.

Plaintiff in error contends that he was prejudiced by certain language of the charge to the jury. After telling the jurors, that with the policy of the prohibition act neither they nor the court had concern as contradistinguished from their rights as private citizens, the court said that when the…