The district attorney asked the witness if it was intoxi- cating liquOr The defendant's counsel objected to the question on the ground that it called for the opinion of the witnesS The court overruled the objection, and the counsel for defendant excepted The witness answered that it was, if one drank enough of it.

The witness further stated that he bought one glass of Dutch beer of defendant on the 16th day of January, 1854, and paid him for it.

The district attorney offered to prove by the witness that defendant sold intoxicating liquors on other days and at other times than 16th day of January, 1854 Defendant's counsel objected The court overruled the objection, and the defendant's counsel excepted The witness also stated that he knew of defendant's selling a glass of the same kind of beer to one Chapman, in March, 1854 Witness also stated on his cross- examination that he had seen and drank strong beer ; never knew of any one getting intoxicated on Dutch beer ; that it had not the same taste as strong beer ; was not as strong as strong beer, though stronger than small beer.

The district attorney then called a witness and proved that he bought beer of defendant in winter of 1854, and paid for it ; it was Dutch ale ; does not think it is intoxicating.

Witness had drank it with other liquors, then it would intoxicate; small beer taken after whiskey would have the like effect, but not so great effect ; think it stronger a good deal than small beer, and not as strong as strong beer.