United States v. Clare
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Motion for new trial. Defendant was indicted and found guilty as a wholesale dealer in malt liquors, who had not paid the special tax required by the act of congress.
1Opinion of the Court
Butleb, D. J.
A new trial is asked for on two grounds— First, that the statute under which the indictment is drawn does not require payment of the tax specified in advance of prosecuting the business; second, that the defendant was not a “wholesale dealer,” as charged.
Section 3242 of the Revised Statutes provides “that every person who carries on the business of a brewer, or wholesale or retail dealer in malt liquors, without having paid a special tax therefor, as required by law, shall, besides being liable for the payment of a tax, be fined not less than $10, nor more than $500.”
Section 3232…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Heath v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1948
- Farmer v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1942
- United States v. Five (5) Coin-Operated Gaming DevicesDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 1965
- United States v. JourdenDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1911