Summary
In Adams Express Co. v. Kentucky, 206 U.S. 138, 27 Sup. Ct. 608, 51 L.Ed. 992, it was said: "It is, of course, a question of fact whether a carrier is confining itself strictly to its business as a carrier or participating in illegal sales."
Summary of this case from Howard v. the StateOpinion
No. 332.
Argued April 17, 18, 1907. Decided May 13, 1907.
Decided on authority of Adams Express Company v. Kentucky, ante, p. 129.
Mr. Lawrence Maxwell Jr., and Mr. Edmund F. Trabue, with whom Mr. Joseph S. Graydon was on the brief, for plaintiffs in error. Mr. Napoleon B. Hays, Attorney General of the State of Kentucky, with whom Mr. Charles H. Morris was on the brief, for defendant in error.fn1
For abstracts of arguments see ante, p. 131 et seq.
This case differs from the preceding in the fact that it was tried by the court without a jury. In all other respects it is substantially the same. There was the same averment in the indictment; and more than that, there was an express stipulation made between counsel pending the trial in these words:
"It is further agreed at this point that the whiskey about which the witness testified was delivered by the Adams Express Company and received by it in its office in Cincinnati in the usual course of business as a common carrier, and carried by it to Barbourville, Kentucky, by the method commonly known as C.O.D."
There is nothing, therefore, to distinguish this case in principle from the preceding, and the same judgment will be entered in this as in that.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissented. See p. 141, post.