Legal Opinion
Mackall v. District of Columbia
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided April 3, 1900No. 944PublishedCited by 1 opinion
In error to the Police Court of the District of Columbia. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Morris
The plaintiffs in error, Laidler Mackall and Quentin Mackall, were arraigned in the Police Court of the District of Columbia under an information which charged them with the sale of certain intoxicating liquors without the written prescription of a reputable physician, .they being druggists, in violation of the act of Congress approved *302March 3, 1893, for the regulation of the sale of intoxicating liquors in the District of Columbia. This act contains the following provisions:
“Sec. 1. Beit enacted, etc., That no person shall sell, offer for sale or keep for sale or traffic in, barter, or…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. KirbySupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- United States v. FreemanSupreme Court of the United States · 1845
- Heydenfeldt v. Daney Gold and Silver Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1877
- People, Ex Rel. Wood v. . LacombeNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- State v. CantonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1868
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kleindienst v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1918