United States v. Cushman
Opinion of the Court
The mode of ascertaining the punishment established by the law of 1866. is unusual, but the offence is clearly the carrying on a business without
In this district it has been our practice to require that the indictment should aver, and the jury should find, the number of gallons distilled by the defendant; but our reason for adopting this practice was not that the fact formed any part of the substance of the offence, but because it is proper, and according to the best precedents, for the jury to pass upon a fact upon which the minimum of fine is made by law- to depend. Without such a finding, the record would never show whether the court had obeyed the law or not. Upon careful consideration, we are not able to see that the section under review means any thing more than this, that the amount of business done without authority shall regulate the punishment. It follows that the law ofโ 1868, in affixing a higher penalty for a failure to pay the tax on the spirits, was dealing with a different subject-matter, and that a conviction or acquittal under either law would be no de-fence to an indictment under the other, and that the latter does not repeal the former. The real difficulty and possible hardship arise out of the statute of 1866 taken by it-stjlf quite as much as from any conflict between the- two statutes. Motions denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.