Wynehamer v People.pdf - The University of Texas at Austin

ALBANY, MARCH, 1856. 379Wynehamer against The People.was further alleged in each count of the indictment thatthe liquor so sold was not alcohol manufactured by thedefendant, or pure wine manufactured by him from grapesgrown by himself; and that the sale of the liquor was notauthorized, nor was any right to sell the same given by anylaw or treaty of the United States. The defendant pleadednot guilty; and the issues were tried in the court of generalsessions by a common law jury duly empanneled. On thetrial the counsel for the people gave evidence tending toprove that after the 4th day of July, 1855, and before thefinding of the bill of indictment, the defendant on severaloccasions had sold and delivered to different persons at hisbar, in Buffalo, brandy, in quantities less than a pint, whichwas drank on his premises. When the people rested, thecounsel for the defendant requested the court to dischargethe defendant, or to direct the jury to render a verdict ofnot guilty, on the following grounds, viz: 1. That it wasnot shown that any offence had been committed by thedefendant; 2. That it did not appear but that the liquoralleged to have been sold was liquor, the right to sell whichwas given by laws or treaties of the United States, nor butthat it was imported by defendant from foreign countriesin pursuance of the United States laws; 3. That the 1stand 4th sections of the aforesaid act were respectively inviolation of the constitutions of ihe United States and of thisstate, and void; 4. That the said act was unauthorized byand in conflict with the laws and treaties of the UnitedStates and the constitution of this state, and therefore void ;5. That it was not shown but that the liquor alleged toha-ve been sold by the defendant was authorized to be soldby the act of the legislature above referred to. The courtoverruled each of the objections, and decided that the casemust be submitted to the jury, and the counsel for thedefendant excepted. Thereupon the counsel for the defendantoffered to prove that the liquor alleged to have beensold was imported into this state from a foreign countiy,