Have Daflers always been law-abiding citizens?

Has our family always been known for staying on the right side of the law? For the most part, the answer is yes. Like many immigrant families, the Dafler family was focused more on establishing a home and ensuring their financial stability through industry. Comprehensive newspaper research shows this to be the case. In almost all cases, reports of Daflers in the news has noted their social and civic involvement. More recently, Daflers often make the news for their involvement in athletics. However, two cases have been found where Daflers were accused and convicted of crimes. These reports, however, seem to be outlying examples that still support the point that Daflers have historically been law-abiding.

Case 1: The Case of the Wayward Thresher

The defendant: Upton Dafler, of West Alexandria, Ohio.

Objection: which one? There are three Upton Daflers in our family tree. This case refers to Upton Arther Dafler, Sr., 1884-1939. He was the grandson of Johann Wolfgang Doerfler and the eight child of David Henry Dafler.

The charge: In 1919, Upton was caught driving a tractor engine on a paved street in the village of West Alexandria, contrary to village ordinance.

Upton owned many tractors and mechanical implements. After his death in 1939, his widow arranged for an auction of much of those implements. The announcement included one steam engine, two tractors, and a 1 1/2-ton Ford truck.

From the Dayton Daily News, Monday, March 11, 1940.

Based on the fact that the auction occurred at her home, the tractors (both then and in 1919) had to traverse a public thoroughfare to reach the property.

The result: While I don’t have details of the case, apparently he was found guilty. I do know that this was not the last the courts heard of this case; Upton appealed, according to this report from the Palladium-Item:

From the Richmond, Indiana Palladium Item, Monday, October 6, 1919.

Results of the appeal have yet to be located, but it seems that this case did not cast a large shadow over the rest of Upton’s life.

Case 2: The Case of the Illegal Libation

The defendant: Earl Dafler, a pharmacist in Richmond, Indiana, and the owner of the Dafler Drug Store. Earl (b. 1897) is also a grandson of Johann Wolfgang; he is the oldest son of Upton Andrew Dafler, Johann’s youngest child.

Objection: which pharmacy? There are two Dafler-owned pharmacies in our history; Dafler’s Pharmacy in Dayton and Dafler Drug Store in Richmond. This case refers to the latter.

The charge: Violation of Indiana’s “dry laws” - the state laws that prohibited the sale of liquor.

From the Richmond, Indiana Palladium-Item, February 16, 1922.

The background: This case took place three years after the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, which prohibited the sale of alcoholic beverages. The details of the federal ban were put into law via the Volstead Act, and it was not a blanket ban on alcohol. For example, wine could still be acquired and used for religious observances, and some medicinal use was permitted. State laws (then and now) also further governed the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Objection: what’s Jamaica ginger? Jamaica ginger is not a beverage per se. It’s an extract that was widely sold as a patent medicine. A two-ounce bottle was offered as a remedy for many common ailments. By 1922, Jamaica ginger was known as a readily-available substitute intoxicant, as the 160-proof concoction was sufficiently potent to intoxicate the imbiber. However, Jamaica ginger occasionally had impurities that made it dangerous in large doses. A chemical called tricresyl phosphate, an additive intended to make the medicine less palatable for use as a beverage, was later discovered to cause paralysis - usually of the hands and feet. Jamaica ginger was a very commonly abused substance during prohibition, eventually known by the slang term “Jake”.

The verdict: Guilty! Earl was ordered to pay a fine and court costs, but no jail time was ordered. Note that a key element of this case was the difference in state and federal law. While ignorance of the law is not a defense, Earl’s legal team successfully argued that the complexities of compliance with both federal and state law on alcohol was difficult.

The aftermath: Earl Dafler continued as a successful pharmacist, both in Richmond and later in Florida. The case seemed not to impact the popularity of his establishment or harm his public reputation.

Conclusion

These two cases, I feel, are the exceptions that prove the rule. Even when Daflers have been charged with crimes, it seems that the charges have revealed hard-working, well-meaning citizens that got caught in technicalities. We can take pride that our family has always been the sort to keep their noses clean!