In re Cullinan

New York Supreme Court

In re Cullinan

2 Liquor Tax Rep. 611

DecidedJanuary 15, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Liquor Tax Rep. 611 (In re Cullinan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Cullinan, 2 Liquor Tax Rep. 611 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Maddox, J.

The petitioner’s contention that respondent’s answers to questions Nos. 3 and 5 of his application statement are false, is without support; though they are material statements, there is no evidence that they were not true when made, and that is the test. It appears that the respondent carried on business in the place for which he had paid the liquor tax, namely, the northwest corner of the Bowery and Stratton’s Walk, but he had not paid the liquor tax. for a trafficking in liquors on the premises on the northeast corner of the Bowery and Schweickert’s Walk and hence, the selling of liquors in that place, as testified to by petitioner’s witnesses, was a violation of the provisions of the Liquor Tax Law; it was another room, in another building.

The proof is sufficient and calls for the conclusion that there was, likewise, a violation in the trafficking in liquor on Sunday, September 1st, 1901.

Motion for final order as prayed for in the petition is granted.

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

Maddox, J.

The petitioner’s contention that respondent’s answers to questions Nos. 3 and 5 of his application statement are false, is without support; though they are material statements, there is no evidence that they were not true when made, and that is the test. It appears that the respondent carried on business in the place for which he had paid the liquor tax, namely, the northwest corner of the Bowery and Stratton’s Walk, but he had not paid the liquor tax. for a trafficking in liquors on the premises on the northeast corner of the Bowery and Schweickert’s Walk and hence, the selling of liquors in that place, as testified to by petitioner’s witnesses, was a violation of the provisions of the Liquor Tax Law; it was another room, in another building.

The proof is sufficient and calls for the conclusion that there was, likewise, a violation in the trafficking in liquor on Sunday, September 1st, 1901.

Motion for final order as prayed for in the petition is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Liquor Tax Rep. 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cullinan-nysupct-1902.