United States v. White
District Court, W.D. Michigan
Indictment for Retailing Liquors without Paying the Special Tax. Defendant was a druggist at Eaton Rapids. The indictment charged sales of liquor at various times from April 1, 1887, to January, 1890. The evidence on the part of the government tended to show that, for a period of about two years, defendant had been selling to a dentist, at frequent intervals, alcohol for burning in a lamp, used by the dentist in his business.
Read the full summary
Indictment for Retailing Liquors without Paying the Special Tax. Defendant was a druggist at Eaton Rapids. The indictment charged sales of liquor at various times from April 1, 1887, to January, 1890. The evidence on the part of the government tended to show that, for a period of about two years, defendant had been selling to a dentist, at frequent intervals, alcohol for burning in a lamp, used by the dentist in his business. The defense introduced testimony tending- to show that the article sold to the dentist was cologne, or rather alcohol into which bergamot, or some of the ingredients of…
1Opinion of the Court
SeveRhns, J.,
(charging jury.') I instruct you, as to the liability of the defendant for the sales made by his employes, that, if the sales made by his employes were made within the scope of the authority delegated by him to them, he would be responsible for such sales; but, if they made sales without his knowledge and consent, and which were outside of and beyond the limits in which he permitted them to act, in the transaction of his business, ho would not be liable for the sales made by such employes. In other words, a party is not criminally responsible for the unauthorized acts of an…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Goldberg v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1922