
    Strafford, )
    Dec. 4, 1923.
    State v. Jules Melanson.
    A motor vehicle, containing a specially constructed compartment in which intoxicating liquors are illegally possessed'and transported, is not subject to forfeiture under Laws 1919, c. 99, s. 6; whether such compartment is a “case or container” within the meaning of Laws 1919, c. 99, s. 10, is not considered.
    Libel, for the forfeiture of a motor vehicle under .Laws 1917, c. 147, ss. 34 and 57, as amended by Laws 1919, c. 99, ss. 6 [34] and 10 [57]. The driver of the car had been found guilty under c. 99, s. 4 [20], of illegal possession and of illegal transportation of intoxicating liquor found concealed in a specially constructed compartment in the vehicle. Transferred by Branch, J., on the state’s exception to the court’s ruling that the state was not entitled to a forfeiture of the motor vehicle.
    
      
      Burt R. Cooper, solicitor (by brief and orally), for the state.
    
      George Grimes (of Massachusetts), for the defendant.
   Snow, J.

The question raised by the state’s exception is answered by the conclusion reached in State v. Nadeau, post, 183. The question whether the specially constructed compartment, as distinguished from the vehicle, was a cask, bottle, case or container within the meaning of s. 10 [57], is not presented and has not been considered.

Exception overruled.

Young, J., dissented: the others concurred.  