United States v. Calhoun

39 F. 604, 1889 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157
CourtDistrict Court, D. South Carolina
DecidedAugust 29, 1889
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 39 F. 604 (United States v. Calhoun) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Calhoun, 39 F. 604, 1889 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157 (D.S.C. 1889).

Opinion

Simonton, J.,

(charging jury.) The defendant, an apothecary, is charged with violating section 3242, Rev. St., being a retail liquor dealer without paying the special tax. It is not denied that he sold to the several persons, witnesses for the government, a compound of rye whisky and calisaya bark. The defense is that this was a medicine originally put up under a prescription of a physician. An apothecary who bona fide uses spirituous liquor exclusively in the preparation or making up-of medicines need not pay the special tax. These are the questions you must answer in this case: In the sale made by defendant to the witnesses for the government, did he bona fide sell them the compound as medicine, and not as a beverage, or was the compound simply whisky in disguise? Is it a medicine to cure disease, or is it intended to gratify the thirst for drink? If it is a medicine, has it intoxicating quality? If so, was this known to defendant? Did he sell it knowing or having reason to know that it was purchased to be used as a beverage? If it was sold bona fide as a medicine, to be used as a medicine, defendant is not guilty.

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

Related

Dutton v. State
1922 OK CR 81 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1922)
Allen v. Liquid Carbonic Co.
170 F. 315 (Eighth Circuit, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 F. 604, 1889 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-calhoun-scd-1889.