In re Lyman

1 Liquor Tax Rep. 409
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In re Lyman. Read the opinion of the Court — 24 Misc. 552
New York Supreme Court·Decided November 15, 1898·Published

Opinion

Smith, J. S. C.

I think that the violations of the provisions of the Liquor Tax Law which authorize the forfeiture of the certificate must be such a violation as would justify the criminal conviction of the holder of the tax certificate. The violation complained of was committed by one Stevens. Upon the undisputed evidence, I think Stevens was selling liquor by virtue of the certificate as agent of the Malcolm Brewing Company; but there is no evidence whatever that the sales complained of as a violation of the Liquor Tax Law were made with the consent or knowledge of the brewing company or by its authority. In the absence of such evidence, there could be no criminal conviction of the Malcolm Brewing Company for such violation.

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

In re Lyman, 1 Liquor Tax Rep. 409 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1898).

1 Liquor Tax Rep. 409 (In re Lyman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.