it has cognizance that whisky is an intoxicating liquor,11 and likewise brandy,19 gin,18 rum, 14 cocktails,15 wine,16 ale 17 and porter.18 Naturally in a case where the liquor in question belongs to the class of those judicially known to be intoxicating, it is not necessary to prove that it will intoxicate when drunk to excess, while, on the other hand, if it is not within that class, it is necessary to prove that if drunk to excess it will cause intoxication.19 Furthermore, the nature and character of intoxicating liquors are matters of such general notoriety that courts will take judicial cognizance thereof in questions arising under statutes restricting their use and sale.20 Thus a court will notice what

are fermented and what distilled spirits.1 Similarly, judicial recognition will be had that alcohol is spirituous and intoxicating, and that it is the intoxicating element of the various forms of beverages known as "spirituous and intoxicating liquors." In some cases the courts have gone so far as judicially to observe the fact that alcohol is good neither for food nor drink. Judicial notice will be taken that wines and liquors are a part of the supplies which meet the wants of a portion, at least, of the traveling public, and that places for the accommodation and entertainment of travelers, such as hotels and taverns, and steamboats and ocean vessels which carry passengers, almost universally sell to their guests and patrons whiskies, wines, and liquors.5

60. Beer; Less Common Intoxicants.-It is generally held that the courts will notice that beer is a malt liquor, that it is prepared by fermentation, and is intoxicating, and it has even been held that the fact that "beer" was purchased in a "near beer" saloon is not sufficient to overcome the presumption that it is intoxicating. In some cases, however, it is considered a matter of common knowledge that the

30 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1078.

4. Ex parte Townsend, 64 Tex. Crim. 350, 144 S. W. 628, Ann. Cas. 1914C 814.

5. People v. Pullman's Palace Car Co., 175 Ill. 125, 51 N. E. 664, 64 L.R.A. 366.

v. Mould, 144 Ia. 296, 122 N. W. 921, 24 L.R.A.(N.S.) 404 and note; State v. Pigg, 78 Kan. 618, 97 Pac. 859, 130 A. S. R. 387, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 848; Gourley v. Com., 140 Ky. 221, 131 S. W. 34, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 315 and note; Fuller v. Jackson, 97 Miss. 237, 52 So. 873, 30 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1078; Blatz v. Rohrbach, 116 N. Y. 450, 22 N. E. 1049, 6 L.R.A. 669; State v. Billups, 63 Ore. 277, 127 Pac. 686, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 308; Ex parte Townsend, 64 Tex. Crim. 350, 144 S. W. 628, Ann. Cas. 1914C 814; State v. Barr, 84 Vt. 38, 77 Atl. 914, 48 L.R.A. 7. Snider v. State, 81 Ga. 753, 7 S. (N.S.) 302 and note; Briffit v. State, E. 631, 12 A. S. R. 350 and note; 58 Wis. 39, 16 N. W. 39, 46 Am. Rep. Welsh v. State, 126 Ind. 71, 25 N. E. 621. 883, 9 L.R.A. 664; Fuller v. Jackson, Notes: 89 Am. Dec. 694; 124 A. S. 97 Miss. 237, 52 So. 873, 30 L.R.A. R. 28; 2 L.R.A. 408.

1. South, etc., Alabama R. Co. v. Wood, 74 Ala. 449, 49 Am. Rep. 819.

2. Snider v. State, 81 Ga. 753, 7 S. E. 631, 12 A. S. R. 350; Fuller v. Jackson, 97 Miss. 237, 52 So. 873, 30 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1078; Ex parte Townsend, 64 Tex. Crim. 350, 144 S. W. 628, Ann. Cas. 1914C 814.

6. State v. Billups, 63 Ore. 277, 127 Pac. 686, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 308; State v. Barr, 84 Vt. 38, 77 Atl. 914, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 302; Briffit v. State, 58 Wis. 39, 16 N. W. 39, 46 Am. Rep. 621.

Note: 89 Am. Dec. 694.

(N.S.) 1078; State v. Billups, 63 Ore. 277, 127 Pac. 686, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 308; Moreno v. State, 64 Tex. Crim. 660, 143 S. W. 156, Ann. Cas. 1914C 863 and note; Briffit v. State, 58 Wis. 39, 16 N. W. 39, 46 Am. Rep. 621.

Notes: 89 Am. Dec. 694; 20 L.R.A. 648.

See also INTOXICATING LIQUORS, ante,

p. 376.

Note: 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 302. 3. Snider v. State, 81 Ga. 753, 7 S. 8. State v. Billups, 63 Ore. 277, 127 E. 631, 12 A. S. R. 350; Fuller v. Pac. 686. 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 308. Jackson, 97 Miss. 237, 52 So. 873,

word "beer" is used to apply to liquors nonintoxicating as well as intoxicating. Naturally, a court adopting that view will refuse to notice without proof that beer is intoxicating. But when beer is described with greater particularity as bock beer, or strong beer, or lager beer, there is no doubt that judicial notice will be taken of its intoxicating qualities. 10 On the other hand certain other descriptive words such as "near" or "Kiel" serve to put the nature of beer beyond the realm of judicial notice.11 While by the rule of common knowledge, courts judicially know the intoxicating character of liquors generally offered for sale, 12 they are not agreed as to the extent of their knowledge of the intoxicating nature of other liquors.13 It is settled, however, that a court will not take judicial notice of the intoxicating character of a beverage which has not become so well known as to have a reputation as to such character. 14 Consequently to sustain a conviction for selling intoxicating liquor, the state must, if the beverage sold is not generally reputed to be intoxicating, introduce evidence of its intoxicating effect.15 And it has been held that proof of the fact that a certain drink contains a percentage of alcohol will not of itself warrant the court in taking judicial notice that the beverage is intoxicating.16 Some cases hold that the court will take judicial notice of the fact that hard cider is a fermented liquor.17 The majority of the cases, however, rule that the intoxicating character of the cider must be shown,18 and the same principle applies in the case of "bitters." 19

61. Tobacco.-Courts will take judicial notice of the nature and qualities of tobacco. They further judicially know that it has been in general use among civilized men for more than two centuries and it is used in some form by a majority of men, by the good and bad, learned and unlearned, the rich and the poor; that tobacco is not injurious to the health of those who deal in it, or are engaged in its production or manufacture, and that its preparation and manufacture

9. Netso v. State, 24 Fla. 363, 5 So. 8, 1 L.R.A. 825; Blatz v. Rohrbach, 116 N. Y. 450, 22 N. E. 1049, 6 L.R.A. 669; State v. Sioux Falls Brewing Co., 5 S. D. 39, 58 N. W. 1, 26 L.R.A. 138.

Notes: 20 L.R.A. 648; Ann. Cas. 1914C 875.

10. Netso v. State, 24 Fla. 363, 5 So. 8, 1 L.R.A. 825.

Note: Ann. Cas. 1914C 875.
11. Note: Ann. Cas. 1914C 876.
12. See supra, par. 59.

13. Marks v. State, 159 Ala. 71, 48
So. 864, 133 A. S. R. 20; Gourley v.
Com., 140 Ky. 221, 131 S. W. 34, 48
L.R.A.(N.S.) 315 and note.

Note: 124 A. S. R. 29.

14. Marks v. State, 159 Ala. 71, 48 So. 864, 133 A. S. R. 20; Snider v. State, 81 Ga. 753, 7 S. E. 631, 12 A. S. R. 350 and note; Gourley v. Com., 140 Ky. 221, 131 S. W. 34, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 315 and note.

15. Marks v. State, 159 Ala. 71, 48 So. 864, 133 A. S. R. 20; Gourley v. Com., 140 Ky. 221, 131 S. W. 34, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 315.

16. Marks v. State, 159 Ala. 71, 48 So. 864, 133 A. S. R. 20.

17. Note: 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 306. 18. Notes: 12 A. S. R. 353; 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 306.

19. Note: 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 307.

into cigars is not dangerous to the public health. 20 It has even been held that a court cannot take judicial cognizance of the fact that tobacco in the form of cigarettes is more noxious than in any other form. But on the other hand with equal certainty it has been said that a court may recognize that cigarettes possess no virtue, are inherently bad, and wholly noxious and deleterious to health. Courts judicially know that tobacco when taken into the stomach may produce nauseating effects.

62. Dangerous Instruments.-Judicial notice may be taken as to whether a weapon of a particular kind is or is not deadly, and an indictment under the statute for an assault with an ax need not aver that the assault was made with a deadly weapon, as the court takes judicial knowledge of the character of the weapon.5 Courts will judicially notice the fact that the use of dynamite as an explosive is intrinsically dangerous, and similarly that railroad torpedoes are loaded with some high explosive, and that they are in their nature dangerous. But judicial cognizance will not be taken of the inherent danger lurking in substances unless such be a matter of common knowledge. The court does not know judicially that a powder magazine may not be so constructed and provided as to insure absolute safety from lightning. Notice will not be taken as to what constitute "inflammable liquids" within the meaning of an insurance policy.10

20. In re Jacobs, .98 N. Y. 98, 50 Am. Rep. 636.

1. Austin v. Tennessee, 179 U. S. 343, 21 S. Ct. 132, 45 U. S. (L. ed.) 224.

2. Austin v. State, 101 Tenn. 563, 48 S. W. 305, 70 A. S. R. 703, 50 L.R.A. 478.

3. State v. Johnson, 118 Mo. 491, 24 S. W. 229, 40 A. S. R. 405.

4. South, etc., Alabama R. Co. v. Wood, 74 Ala. 449, 49 Am. Rep. 819. 5. Note: 89 Am. Dec. 697.

6. Fitzsimons, etc., Co. v. Braun, 199 Ill. 390, 65 N. E. 249, 59 L.R.A. 421; Chicago v. Murdock, 212 Ill. 9, 72 N. E. 46, 103 A. S. R. 221.

7. Euting v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 116 Wis. 13, 92 N. W. 358, 96 A. S. R. 936, 60 L.R.A. 158.

8. Mears v. Humboldt Ins. Co., 92 Pa. St. 15, 37 Am. Rep. 647.

9. Kinney v. Koopman, 116 Ala. 310, 22 So. 593, 67 A. S. R. 119, 37 L.R.A. 497.

1136

10. Note: 3 British Rul. Cas. 47.

INDEX.

The numbers in this Index refer to pages.