Maize v. State
Indiana Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Tippecanoe Court of Common Pleas.
1Opinion of the CourtStuart, J.
This was a prosecution under the act of March, 1853, for retailing spirits without license. Maize admitted that the liquor was sold as charged. The cause was submitted to the Court. Finding and judgment for the state.
Among the “agreed facts” are the following: The prosecuting attorney admitted that at the time of the sale, the act of March 4, 1853, was not of uniform operation throughout the state, in this, viz., that some townships voted “ license,” others “ no license;” that the township in which the liquor was sold voted “ no license;” and that the act in question was, at, &c., in force,…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Fletcher v. PeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
3Cited by53 opinions
- Santo v. StateSupreme Court of Iowa · 1855
- Stewart v. Bd. of Super. of Polk CountySupreme Court of Iowa · 1870
- Lafayette, Muncie, & Bloomington Rail Road v. GeigerIndiana Supreme Court · 1870
- Hedderich v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Robinson v. SchenckIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.