United States v. Wilson
District Court, E.D. Missouri
Indictment for carrying on business of retail liquor dealer without having first paid special tax. It appeared by the facts in evidence in this cause that the defendant was carrying on a general merchandise business, such as usually conducted at country stores. In addition to the usual stock of groceries, dry goods, agricultural implements, etc., he sold patent or proprietary medicines.
Read the full summary
Indictment for carrying on business of retail liquor dealer without having first paid special tax. It appeared by the facts in evidence in this cause that the defendant was carrying on a general merchandise business, such as usually conducted at country stores. In addition to the usual stock of groceries, dry goods, agricultural implements, etc., he sold patent or proprietary medicines. Among the latter were preparations of the Donnell Manufacturing Company known as “Donnell’s Empire Tonic Bitters.” These latter were sold by the bottle, in the original package as put up by the proprietor.…
1Opinion of the CourtPriest, District Judge
(charging jury). The federal law requires all retail dealers of liquor to pay a sjtecial tax before engaging; in that business. The defendant in this case is charged with a violation of that law,—that is, for selling by retail, liquor in less quantity than five gallons. The law itself defines who are retail liquor dealers. It says that every person who sells or offers lor sale foreign or domestic distilled spirits, wines, or malt liquors, in less quantity than five gallons at the same time, shall be regarded as a retail dealer in liquors. The proof in this case shows the sale of no other…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State v. Intoxicating Liquors & Vessels, Dolan & Furnival Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1919
- Allen v. Liquid Carbonic Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909