United States v. Distillery

S.D. New York

United States v. Distillery

25 F. Cas. 854, 8 Ben. 473

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJune 15, 1876

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 F. Cas. 854 (United States v. Distillery) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Distillery, 25 F. Cas. 854, 8 Ben. 473 (S.D.N.Y. 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

If the decision of the circuit court in this ease [Case No. 14,963] is a correct exposition of the law, I do not see how the connivance and complicity of the government storekeeper in the fraud committed by the person who ran the distillery, can operate to destroy the forfeiture resulting from the acts of such person. The person who carried on the business of a distiller with intent to defraud the United States of the tax on the spirits distilled by him, did not any the less carry on such business with such intent, because he did not commit his fraud secretly, but had for a participant in it the government storekeeper. I think, therefore, there must be a decree for the United States, because I think the decision of the circuit court in this case, above cited, covers, substantially, every question now presented.

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

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

If the decision of the circuit court in this ease [Case No. 14,963] is a correct exposition of the law, I do not see how the connivance and complicity of the government storekeeper in the fraud committed by the person who ran the distillery, can operate to destroy the forfeiture resulting from the acts of such person. The person who carried on the business of a distiller with intent to defraud the United States of the tax on the spirits distilled by him, did not any the less carry on such business with such intent, because he did not commit his fraud secretly, but had for a participant in it the government storekeeper. I think, therefore, there must be a decree for the United States, because I think the decision of the circuit court in this case, above cited, covers, substantially, every question now presented.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 F. Cas. 854, 8 Ben. 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-distillery-nysd-1876.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack