Rooks v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Tennessee; John E. McCall, Judge. Criminal prosecution by the United States against Daniel Rooks. Judgment of conviction, and defendant brings error.
1Per curiam
Rooks was convicted for conducting the business of a retail liquor dealer without paying the tax. R. S. § 3242, U. S. Comp. St. § 5965. His chief complaint is that there was no evidence to support the verdict.
[1] The proofs tended to show that he was conducting a milk and dairy business upon his farm a few miles from Memphis, that he had on hand between two and three cases of whisky in half pint flasks, and that he sold two flasks to two persons who wished to buy. There was no reason suggested for making these sales, unless he was carrying the liquor for the purpose of selling to any one who…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bailey v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1919
- Biandi v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1919
- Sodini v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1919
3Cited by3 opinions
- Supreme Malt Products Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1946
- Sylvia v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1920
- Wilson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1945