People v. Cox
New York County Courts
Indictment for violation of the Liquor Tax Law, in a town in which the liquor Traffic had been forbidden by the last town meet-. „ing. The charging part of the indictment was that the defendant “unlawfully did sell to one Owen O. Wiard distilled and rectified spirits, wine, fermented, and malt liquors in quantities less than five wine gallons at a time, to wit, two glasses of lager beer, without having paid any tax,” etc. The jury brought in the following special verdict.
Read the full summary
Indictment for violation of the Liquor Tax Law, in a town in which the liquor Traffic had been forbidden by the last town meet-. „ing. The charging part of the indictment was that the defendant “unlawfully did sell to one Owen O. Wiard distilled and rectified spirits, wine, fermented, and malt liquors in quantities less than five wine gallons at a time, to wit, two glasses of lager beer, without having paid any tax,” etc. The jury brought in the following special verdict. “The jury finds that on the 31st day of August, 1904, the defendant at the town of Potsdam, in this county, did sell and…
1Opinion of the Court
Hale, J.:
The jury has cast upon the court in this case the duty of determining whether “malt rose,” so called, is distilled or rectified spirits, or fermented or malt liquor, within the meaning of section 2 of the Liquor Tax Law.
Philput,- the manufacturer of the beverage sold by defendant under the name of malt rose, testified that one of the ingredients *451was the lager beer known as “export lager.” Mr. Williams, the chemist called by defendant, testified that on the assumption that the export beer used by Philput was an average sample of American export beer, the mixture resulting from the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- People v. CoxAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905