Lawrence v. Seyburn

202 F. 913, 121 C.C.A. 271, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1091
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided February 25, 1913·No. No. 2,370·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

[1] The first and second bills of exception upon, which the first four assignments of error are predicated show no state of facts proven or in issue for the court to determine whether or not the court’s charges to the jury specially excepted to were material or even relevant to the issue to be submitted to the jury, and therefore neither of the said assignments is well taken.

[2] For a dealer in adulterated butter to be liable to a tax by the United States under the statute approved May 9, 1902, c. 784, 32 Statutes at Large, p. 193 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1339), it is immaterial whether or not the said dealer “knowingly” engaged in the business.

We find no reversible error in the transcript, and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

Lawrence v. Seyburn, 202 F. 913, 121 C.C.A. 271, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1091 (5th Cir. 1913).

202 F. 913 (Lawrence v. Seyburn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gulf Oil Corp. v. Heath
501 S.W.2d 787 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1973)
Johnson v. United States
59 F.2d 42 (Ninth Circuit, 1932)
Harder v. Irwin
285 F. 402 (N.D. New York, 1923)