A court decision reversing an appealed verdict has saved the University from a major overhaul of its polity on alcohol and undergraduates.

The case concerned 14 Wesleyan and Williams students, who supplied a number of Bradford girls with liquor at a party. Had the courts decided that they had broken the law in doing this, it would then have become illegal to give, as well as sell, alchol to any person under 21, including undergraduates at Harvard.

A "guilty" verdict was, in fact, handed down when the case first came up. "If said yesterday, "we would have had to do something very far-reaching." He pointed out that interpreting the existing law in this way would leave the University in a situation where "we would have had to start watching ourselves.'

Masters Consider Question

The House Masters devoted part of their latest monthly meeting to examining just what "watching ourselves" might mean to the Harvard Community. An-other group which the original decision would have affected is the Final Clubs, and any other College organizations which make a practice of serving alcoholic beverages.

Whether or not the 14 students involved in the case were guilty depended on the interpretation of a law forbidding "delivery of alcohol" to a person under 21. The judge in the Haverhill District Court, where the case first was tried, felt that "delivery" included what the students had done, although the consequences of this ruling had been pointed out to him.

Judge David A. Rose, Who reversed the ruling in the subsequent appeal, told the CRIMSON last night that in his opinion "delivery" was intended to mean only delivery over the counter in an actual sale. Rose admitted, however, that there were good arguments for the other side.

At present there are no explicit regulations concerting the possession of alcoholic beverages by undergraduates. Under the final court decision this can continue to be the case.