United States v. Rindskopf
District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
The defendants [Samuel Rindskopf and others] were indicted for conspiracy under section 30, Act March 2, 1867. It was alleged in the indictment that Alexander L. Rogers was the owner of a distillery at Middleton, and for the purpose and with intent to defraud the United States out of the tax upon the spirits manufactured thereat, conspired with Samuel Rindskopf, liquor dealer, of Milwaukee, Albert Mueller, his distiller, and James W. Bull, store-keeper at said distillery, to…
Read the full summary
The defendants [Samuel Rindskopf and others] were indicted for conspiracy under section 30, Act March 2, 1867. It was alleged in the indictment that Alexander L. Rogers was the owner of a distillery at Middleton, and for the purpose and with intent to defraud the United States out of the tax upon the spirits manufactured thereat, conspired with Samuel Rindskopf, liquor dealer, of Milwaukee, Albert Mueller, his distiller, and James W. Bull, store-keeper at said distillery, to aid and assist him in carrying out such purpose; and that they did, in pursuance thereof, manufacture, dispose of, and…
1Opinion of the CourtHopkins, District Judge
(charging jury). The defendants were indicted under section 30 of the act of March 2, 1867 (United States revenue laws), for a conspiracy. This section reads as follows: “If two or more persons conspire, either to commit any offense against the laws of the United States or to defraud the United States in any manner whatever, and one or more of said parties to said conspiracy shall do any act to effect the object thereof, the parties to said conspiracy shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be liable to a penalty of not less than one thousand dollars, and not…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- People v. MatherNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Commonwealth v. KingsburyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Gardner v. PrestonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1805
- Commonwealth v. WarrenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Commonwealth v. DavisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State ex rel. Durner v. HueginWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Brown v. ElliottSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Standard Oil Co. v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1906
- Hyde v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1910
- Brown v. C. T. ElliottSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.