United States v. Frank
District Court, D. New Jersey
1Opinion of the Court
BOURQUIN, District Judge.
In these suits to abate Volstead nuisances, the bills allege defendants are respectively owners and employees. The answers are in behalf of all defendants and signed by counsel only; Mr. Caruso the first, Mr. Pearse the second. In the former the answer in respect to said allegations is, “No knowledge sufficient to form a belief,” and in the latter that “they deny.”
At final hearing, plaintiff’s evidence of ownership in the first suit was incompetent to withstand objection by counsel (Mr. Glassner), promptly made, but at the adjourned hearing thus forced, due proof was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- United States v. FordDistrict Court, D. Montana · 1925
- In re KellyDistrict Court, D. Montana · 1917
3Cited by2 opinions
- May Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. United States District CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1933
- Michael C. Ciraolo v. Frank I. Madigan, Sheriff of Alameda CountyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1971