Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

39 F. 604

United States v. Calhoun

South Carolina District Court

Decided August 29, 1889.)

South Carolina District Court · decided 1889-08-29

<p>Internal Revenue—Sale os- Spirituous Liquors by Apothecary.</p> <p>An apothecary, wbo bona fide uses spirituous liquors in the preparation of a-medicine, to be used as such, and not as a beverage, does not violate Rev. St. TJ. S. § 3242, by not paying the special tax required of a retail liquor dealer..</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1919

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-08-29

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Internal Revenue—Sale os- Spirituous Liquors by Apothecary.

¶2An apothecary, wbo bona fide uses spirituous liquors in the preparation of a-medicine, to be used as such, and not as a beverage, does not violate Rev. St. TJ. S. § 3242, by not paying the special tax required of a retail liquor dealer..

¶3Indictment for Selling Liquor without Payment of Special Tax.

¶4Abiel Lathrop, Dist. Atty.

¶5A. H. Dean, for defendant.

¶6*605Simonton, J.,

¶7(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.

/39/f1d/604 · .json · Public domain