State v. Lord
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Indictment, for soiling one half pint of spirituous liquor August 21, 1890. The defendant moved to quash the indictment on the ground that the statute under -which it was found is unconstitutional and void. The motion was denied, and the defendant excepted.
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Proof that the liquor which the defendant is charged with selling was manufactured in this state and was sold by him as charged, or bad been brought into this state and was sold by him after it had become intermingled with the other property in the state, would be sufficient to sustain the indictment. The ■defendant has furnished no brief, nor asked to be heard orally. We are left to conjecture his reasons for claiming that the statute under which the indictment was found is unconstitutional, and we assume that he relies upon the authority of Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100.
In Pierce v. The…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Leisy v. HardinSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Thurlow v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1847
- In Re RahrerSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Commonwealth v. GagneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
- Commonwealth v. CalhaneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Neisel v. MoranSupreme Court of Florida · 1919