In re Barber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Barber

3 Liquor Tax Rep. 530

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Liquor Tax Rep. 530 (In re Barber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Barber, 3 Liquor Tax Rep. 530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

The petition is not made on information and belief, except the paragraph charging the sales of liquor, and this paragraph refers to the affidavits annexed and which are made a part of the petition, in which the sales are sworn to positively, and this has been approved in Matter of Cullinan v. Micha (76 App. Div. 362; affirmed, 173 N. Y. 610; Matter of Wheaton v. Slattery, 96 App. Div. 102.)

In Matter of Hunter, 34 Misc. 389, affirmed, 59 App. Div. 626, the petition did not show that the “ beer ” sold was fermented or malt liquor, hence no violation was charged, and the sale was made three months before the proceedings were begun. This was too remote.

The injunction does not deprive the defendant of any legal right, nor prevent him from doing anything which he has a legal right to do. He is enjoined only from the commission of a crime.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The petition is not made on information and belief, except the paragraph charging the sales of liquor, and this paragraph refers to the affidavits annexed and which are made a part of the petition, in which the sales are sworn to positively, and this has been approved in Matter of Cullinan v. Micha (76 App. Div. 362; affirmed, 173 N. Y. 610; Matter of Wheaton v. Slattery, 96 App. Div. 102.)

In Matter of Hunter, 34 Misc. 389, affirmed, 59 App. Div. 626, the petition did not show that the “ beer ” sold was fermented or malt liquor, hence no violation was charged, and the sale was made three months before the proceedings were begun. This was too remote.

The injunction does not deprive the defendant of any legal right, nor prevent him from doing anything which he has a legal right to do. He is enjoined only from the commission of a crime.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Liquor Tax Rep. 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-barber-nyappdiv-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack